Affirmative Action: good, a response to the rest





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: What Are My Chances?: January 2003 Archive: Affirmative Action: good, a response to the rest
By URMsupporter on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Reading some of these Affirmative Action posts in particular to “AA: It fosters Racism,” shows me many of you are ignorant and their needs to be an immediate public response addressing the validity of this issue.

Let's have a quick Q&A session:

Q. How many blacks were hung nearly 50+ years ago for falsely being *accused* of raping a white girl, for defending himself/herself to a white person, for running away from their master, or for not working hard enough in the fields?
A. Hundreds of thousands. I direct you to the book "100 years of Lynching"

Q. After the Emancipation Proclamation, which race decided to form vignette groups (with actions entailing of raping, killing, slaughtering, slaying, murdering, lynching, castrating, decapitating, burning, threatening, and so on) to continue to suppress blacks as property, to force them to serve under black codes, to not seek a legitimate education, and to follow Jim Crow laws enlisting curfews, segregation, devaluing the Negro, and then be protected by an article in the constitution?
A. Whites.

Q. Which races were denied their self-autonomy, forced to come to a country in chains, have their children sold to slavery as property, be exploited for their labor, nearly exterminated for assuming land that rightfully belongs to themselves, boosted the U.S. economy for labor either on below minimal or not even being paid, denied equality in schools, the law, and finances, denied as citizens, treated as property, and built the U.S. economic foundation allowing the archaic IVY schools like Harvard or Yale to get federal grants and then be kicked in their asses for having only few of their kind be accepted?
A. All Underrepresented Minorities

You people disgust me and need to get a grip on reality. Look at the statistics:
AT Harvard:
8% African American
8% Hispanic American
1% Native American

AT Princeton:
7% African Americans
6% Hispanic Americans
1% Native American

AT Yale:
8% African American
6% Hispanic American
1% Native American

Do you know what the majority of the population makes up at these schools? Asian and Whites. All of you 700+ SAT Math II/I/section owners, calculate the rest of the percentages. If you can’t figure out the implication, let me explain it to you:

Inherently the competitive pool of whites and Asians are greater than the URM pools on face. The top-notch schools have very few African Americans and Hispanic Americans applying in the first place. The main anti-AA premise all of you so-called elites advocate; simply suggest that if a URM doesn’t fit into the US news SAT/ACT percentile, they don’t deserve admissions and should be replaced by an Asian or white instead who fits the percentile, then continue to base this testimony on biased empirical evidence. This argument doesn’t make sense on several levels:

1. First Reason: Diversity is important. The college role is to somehow reflect the real world. Notice the process on how Presidents choose their cabinets: by having a diverse representation on opinion; the way the American Bar Association or Medical Association choose their representatives is by diverse opinion and so on. According to the feeble-minded implication and standards many of you give on this board, the freshmen classes at the Ivies need to be made up of stellar students with high-standardized test scores and high ECS. However, what about the rest of the population who can’t afford to shell out thousands of dollars for prep classes to artificially raise those scores, to make seemingly altruistic mission trips to Hungary and Guatemala, or someone that doesn’t have enough “intellectual connections” to get their daddies to hire them in their law or doctor offices for internships? Facilitating this bias perpetuates the stigma of the Jim Crow era and the “Good ‘Ol Boy system,” where the privileged attended college and the non did not. We’re in the 21st century folks, and it is very important to shed these archaic renditions of racism and replace it with tolerance of diversity. Might as well start in the undergraduate school since you will have to when you enter the real world.

2. Second Reason: The hypocrisy you all ooze is sickening. I DO NOT HEAR ANY OF YOU anti-AA complaining about the poor white (nearly trashy whites) who make into the IVY’s for other reasons like geographic locations, unique talents, and so on. I do not hear you bashing the white athletics with less than stellar scores, or the legacies, or the poor Asians that run the typical family dry cleaning businesses that get accepted, or the whites shelling out thousands of dollars for private SAT tutors to artificially raise their SAT score since otherwise they can’t get accepted by their own SAT-based merits, or the stellar Asian prodigy that plays the violin, viola, piano and cello yet struggles on the SAT but gets accepted an so on. Yet when an African American or Hispanic becomes accepted you automatically judge him/her on riding on the waves of Affirmative Action and not taking into account the unique diversity they could bring on the table similar to the aforementioned examples. Even if the scores are less than stellar, the uniqueness the person might bring to the table will improve the overall quality of life at that particular school. Just for all you ignorant ones, there is no definite universal standard implemented on each person for admission officers at any particular school.

3. 3rd reason your argument is fallible: This drive on that URM’s having less SAT scores than whites is a non-unique argument. The scores are about 100-150 scores less anyway, which in the real world will not equate the epitome of intelligence or the epitome of dumbness.

This epitome dichotomy however has been proven by the fact that the majority of you with High SAT scores are dumba**es with archaic opinions in the first place. A further testimony that SAT does not equate to intelligence. You all anger me by reading some of these posts that knock Affirmative action by ignorant responses and knocking the merits of the underrepresented minority. You all need to get a life. Get a grip on reality. Minorities are capable and you must accept it.

By yo_go_boy on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:04 pm: Edit

preach it man, i totally agree and i'm glad someone finally said it!!!

By WOW on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:09 pm: Edit

By far the best post I've ever seen on this board. I agree 100%.

By kghjkhj on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit

lol. AA is a joke...it is legalized discrimination. all your arguments for pro-AA is ill-gotten a purely nonsensical. diversity should not be so vital that it displaces those applicants that work hard...pour their blood, sweat and tears in obtaining stellar scores. face it, asians and whites get screwed over and you'd simply like to keep it that way.

you think, "we were lynched for all these years and the white man has stuck it to us...now lets just stand back and smile now as AA sticks it back to them. go AA!"

how pathetic...and wrong.

as for your statistics, the 17% URMs at harvard, the 14% at princeton and the 15% at yale...those are way too high. if admissions were truly a fare process, it should look more like 2% harvard, 1% princeton and 2% yale (because those meager percentages represent the few URMs that are actually qualified statistically)...with the remaining spots re-allocated to those who deserve it more...namely qualified asians and whites who have the stats to back up their acceptances.

By ser on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:19 pm: Edit

The question is for all of you obnoxious white boys out there with low SAT's, along with your IVY aspirations, wouldt you take advantage of AA if you were an URM?

By the way, it is what you do with your eduaction that counts. So what if the black at harvard is there because of his 1200, work your AS$ off at whatever school you are at, and make your damn money--because that's all you are concearned with. My uncle went to Brooklyn College, and is making over $200,000 a year because he worked his ass off. I dont think he'd get over an 1100 on the SAT. 2nd, my cousin..IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of verizon wireless, did not go to an ivy league school. In fact, he was a poll climber--ya know, the guy that comes during the snow storm? Well, he worked his way up the ladder because of his personality, determination, and hard work. STop bitching about how it's not fair that you didn't get into your dream school. I got rejected from Yale, and I MOVED THE F ON! Quit complaining, the name on the t-shirt doesn't matter once you are in the school, it's what you do wherever you may be.

By Another URM supporter on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:31 pm: Edit

kgh... Wow, you're ideas about how URM's should be represented on college campuses are truly flawed. The idea that 'URM supporter' was trying to advance is that college demographics should reflect precisely those of our country. In other words, if this country is composed of 14% blacks, then colleges should strive to reflect the nature of this great country.

The problem with folks like you, and people like Tim (who we all now know is a racist, by the way) is that you fail to see Affirmative Action as part of a larger picture--you only see it as taking away a spot from a qualified white applicant and giving it to blacks. These arguments merely serve to exacerbate racial divisions, and pit one race against another. Affirmative action is the best way to remedy this situation.

Cheers!

By no one on Saturday, January 04, 2003 - 11:37 pm: Edit

1. Diversity should not take over precedence over a person's civil right to be judged upon his merit. Diversity provided by AA is inherently fake. Racial diversity does not equal intellectual diversity. If we wanted true diversity, we would admit 50% conservatives and 50% liberals.

2. Most anti-AA people are against legacy. Stop setting up straw men and debate the real topic at hand.

3. 150 points isn't that much a difference so it really isn't discrimination? Nice rationalization.
Anyway, your figures are wrong. It's closer to 300 points at truly competitive colleges.


What sickens me about the pro-AA people is that you guys do not see that there are innocent victims to racial discrimination. Gratz, Bakke are real life examples of the victims of AA. Ultimately, AA hurts us all. AA created Dr. Patrick Chavis, after all. Think about all of the people he murdered the next time you think academic merit should be replace
with racial "merit"

By tertullian on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit

actually, many URM's don't make it in the real world. the real world (outside college) realizes these URM's were given unfair advantages and are therefore less inclined to hire for example, a black person from Harvard than an Asian from the same school. Why? Because they're not stupid. They KNOW it is more probable that the black worked less than the Asian to get to the same spot. (sux for the URM's who actually didn't need AA, I know many intelligent blacks/hispanics who could have done fine without it... all it does is leave the shadow of a doubt) But let's face it... how many URM doctors/lawyers/high position jobs do u see out there? What happens to that ridiculous 14-17% URM that gets into the good schools? They don't make it. Simple as that.

To every non-URM out there feeling jipped by AA, it only matters where u end up in the end, the means in which to get there amount to nothing once you've "arrived." So again, LET these URM's have their chance-- they won't survive, as depicted by their small percentages in the more competitive workforce in real life.

The moral: What goes around comes around.

And one more thing... good students will always find a way to succeed regardless of where they end up (especially for undergraduate education).

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:12 am: Edit

For every space a non-deserving URM takes, a deserving person loses it.

It may not matter in undergrad schools, but at the post-grad level like Medical School, it hurts this nation when a URM wastes a slot. We need as many doctors as we produce from our medical schools.

BTW, AA never ends. HR departments are scared shitless of AA and racial extortionists like Jessie Jackson. Go to amazon. There are plenty of AA books for HR departments.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:13 am: Edit

Hmm...profanity filter didn't get that one. My apologies.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:25 am: Edit

All of your arguments can be refuted.

"Q. How many blacks were hung nearly 50+ years ago..."

-I haven't lynched anyone, nor has anyone I know. My ancestors haven't even lynched anyone. Why should I be punished for the crimes of dead people?

"Q. After the Emancipation Proclamation, which race decided to form vignette groups..."

-I haven't done any of this, just like the above question.

"...and then be protected by an article in the constitution?"

-If you are referring to the First Amendment protection for the KKK, even if their speech is abhorrent they still deserve their right to speak.

"A. Whites."

-The actions of a subset of a racial group do not indicate the behavior or attitudes of the whole. KKK members are to blame for the actions of the KKK, while the entire White race is not. You're using stereotypes here, and for every negative stereotype you make about Whites I could make one for Blacks. But, stereotypes have no meaning.

"Q. Which races were denied their self-autonomy, forced to come to a country in chains...
...A. All Underrepresented Minorities"

-You are just flat-out wrong here. Hispanics, for example, were not forced to come here in chains, Blacks and Hispanics were not nearly exterminated, Hispanics were not treated as property, et cetera. It can also be noted that many of these things apply to Asians, such as the Chinese railroad laborers or the interned Japanese of World War II, yet Asians do not receive an Affirmative Action advantage.

"AT Harvard:
8% African American
8% Hispanic American
1% Native American"

Compare to the 2000 Census on race(1):

12% Black, Non-Hispanic
12% Hispanic
0.7% Native American, Non-Hispanic

So: Native Americans are fairly represented, according to your data and the census. There's a 4-6 percent difference between the nation as a whole and Harvard, Princeton and Yale when it comes to Black and Hispanic numbers. However, as you say, Black and Hispanic applications to these elite universities as a percent of total applications are much lower than Blacks and Hispanics as a percent of the total U.S. population. (Sorry, I couldn't find statistics on it, I know I've seen them from a reliable source but I just spent 15 minutes without finding them again.) These schools can hardly admit someone who doesn't apply. This seems to me to call for outreach programs rather than preferences. When Georgia outlawed Affirmative Action, the University of Georgia put in place an outreach program and found that minority percentages actually increased by a point.(2)

"The main anti-AA premise all of you so-called elites advocate; simply suggest that if a URM doesn’t fit into the US news SAT/ACT percentile, they don’t deserve admissions and should be replaced by an Asian or white instead who fits the percentile"

Not necessarily. They should not, however, have race as a compensation factor. Just like Whites or Asians, underrepresented minorities' essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, talents, et cetera should be considered as complements to an SAT score or compensation for a bad SAT score, but race should not be.

"1. First Reason: Diversity is important."

-This idea boils down to the idea that, all else being equal, a minority is more advantageous to a college than a white person. It is my belief that diversity of thought, talent, philosophies, and so on is valuable, but diversity of "Race" box checked on the application is worthless. Of course, many colleges disagree with me.

Regarding the diversity issue, I would like to quote a woman at M.I.T. against affirmative action, both for minorities and for females: "Presumably, diversity is a goal to make sure, for example, that a school isn't full of white men. So what are women and minorities? Scenery for white men?"(3)

"I DO NOT HEAR ANY OF YOU anti-AA complaining about the poor white (nearly trashy whites) who make into the IVY’s for other reasons..."

-This is because the things you mentioned - talents and music - are valid skills and achievements. Athletics can be argued about, but it does at least represent something a person acheived rather than something they were born into. I do agree with you that legacy and perhaps geographical location should be abolished, as it is something you are born into. SAT tutoring is a more controversial issue, and I'm not entirely sure of my own stance on it, so I won't say much here. The SAT does claim that the effect of coaching is negligible (namely, that taking a second SAT with coaching only results in an 8 point verbal gain and an 18 point math gain on average compared to taking a second SAT without coaching(4)), but they are of course a biased source for such a study.

"The scores are about 100-150 scores less anyway"

-The College Board says that differences between scores become meaningful at around 60 points, and that is the minimum difference to use when making decisions between students.(5)

"Minorities are capable and you must accept it."

-I agree, that's why I don't believe in Affirmative Action preferences.

Tim

(1)2000 U.S. Census, Table 10

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

(2)December 12, 2002 Christian Science Monitor, "The Georgia students on this recruiter's mind"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1213/p03s01-usju.html

(3)September 23, 1997 The Tech, "Taking In the Scenery: Affirmative Action's Patronizing Welcome Insults Us All"

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N44/blau.44c.html

(4)Coaching and the SAT I, Table 3

http://www.collegeboard.com/repository/coaching_and_the_sat_10501.pdf

(5) SAT Program Highlights - Using the SAT, Part 5

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/SAT_Highlights.pdf

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:31 am: Edit

"The problem with folks like you, and people like Tim (who we all now know is a racist, by the way) is that you fail to see Affirmative Action as part of a larger picture--you only see it as taking away a spot from a qualified white applicant and giving it to blacks. These arguments merely serve to exacerbate racial divisions, and pit one race against another. Affirmative action is the best way to remedy this situation."

Ad hominem ignored.

What's ironic to me is that I see Affirmative Action not as the remedy for pitting one race against another, but as the cause of further divisions in many areas.

Tim

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:35 am: Edit

Tim knocked you the •••• out.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:37 am: Edit

Tim does NOT want college applicants to be discriminated based on race.

Another URM supporter WANTS college applicants to be discriminated based on race.


Who's the racist again?

By Pat57575 (Pat57575) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:51 am: Edit

diversity = good
forced diversity = bad

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:52 am: Edit

Maybe 30 years ago, AA was appropriate. I believe enough time has elapsed to show that AA isn't the solution to the social divides between minorities and whites. The problem starts with the prevalent "black or URM culture." How can one be expected to achieve when they don't know who their dad is, their mom, relatives, and friends have no expectations of them, and no one they know has even gone to college? AA does not even benefit these people. It mostly benefits blacks who are expected to achieve and have support. This whole poor culture that plays off college and education as just spoiled white stuff needs to change. AA is the the remedy. There needs to be more government programs to help poor neighborhoods or something of the sort. There is no obvious solution. But i think that it is clear now that AA is not a solution.

BTW please don't tell me that i am just stereotyping black culture. The percentage of poor blacks without a father is enormous.

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:55 am: Edit

By the way, why is diversity good? Don't just respond with, "it gives you a new viewpoint!!!" Well, if you do, at least explain why that's important.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:06 am: Edit

The diversity argument came from the University of California Regents v. Bakke case.

Justice Powell stated that diversity was a "compelling state interest", however, any special consideration given to blacks should be only a plus factor and only if all other alternatives are exhausted.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265


Justice Powell would be turning over in his grave if he saw the state of affairs now. Plus factor indeed.

By Pat57575 (Pat57575) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:07 am: Edit

Variety is something that is just naturally favorable.

Chicken seven nights a week would get old awfully quick.

By mamon on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:09 am: Edit

i guess all ivies should be all white because whites are the smartest and they are the majority in this country.

these are the crude words of everyone against AA.

By Urmsupporter (Urmsupporter) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:10 am: Edit

To no-one, the post earlier:
1. Your syllogism has one flaw: the idea that merit ought to supercede the precedence of diversity. In the pursuit of diversity, you’ll find the merits needed to make an intelligent collected body as a whole. Racial diversity does not equal intellectual diversity? HA! You’re a fool for believing such an untruth. I suggest you meet more people in the real world. And it’s saddening how you seemingly equate intellectual diversity as to only political reforms: conservatism and liberalism. See prior advance about meeting people in the real world.

2. Obviously you don’t understand the heart of my second response in my earlier post, you need to re read it.

3. The first statement in your rationalization in an attempt to mock me didn’t make sense. A 300-point difference? HA, now I mock you. Let’s assume the average SAT score at competitive colleges, and of course I’m stretching it some, is around 1450. Are you telling me the majority of accepted Underrepresented Minorities, African American, Hispanic, and Native American, at competitive colleges have SAT scores at 1150 or under? Are you also telling me this is a norm at these so-called competitive colleges? Use some logic here. If this is true, trust me, a lot more of your illogical anti-AA buddies will be making a huge uproar. Also let me tell you something, at Howard university and Morehouse College, prominent mostly all African-American colleges, have 75th percentile are at 1400 SATs or 1350 (depending which resource you look at it), nearly the 25-50th percentile at “competitive colleges,” or like my previous post said, a mere 100-150 point difference. My point is still valid.

Oh you mention innocent victims to racial discrimination? I mourn the deaths of the examples you give, yet, don’t use extreme cases because they point the invalidity of your argumentation. Any isolated name you give, I can give you thousands of innocent URM victims, e.g. ancestors, to counter produce to unfortunate examples of those 3 names you give. If you want further proof, take a look at an encyclopedia, particularly the sections regarding the extermination of the native Americans during pre and post Columbian era, the slavery and Jim crow laws for the African Americans, and the exploitations of the Cubans, Mexicans, Spanish, central America, and parts of South America all for the greed of should I say the “anti-affirmative action” greedy Europeans.

By Pat57575 (Pat57575) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:12 am: Edit

if AA was done away with, maybe URMs would have some incentive climb their way up, eh?

By anonymous on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:12 am: Edit

Tertullian, just because hispanics and blacks don't have high graduate rates as white/asians in prestigious schools, doesn't mean they don't make it school. You just don't know about them. Also affirmative action doesn't turn around on anybody since the people applying to the schools didn't create the system.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:12 am: Edit

"i guess all ivies should be all white because whites are the smartest and they are the majority in this country.

these are the crude words of everyone against AA."

That is quite false. I do not believe that minorities are all underqualified when race is not considered, which is the belief you propose. I don't believe the Ivies "should" be anything when it comes to race. They should reflect the strongest applicants without race as a factor.

Tim

By Urmsupporter (Urmsupporter) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:15 am: Edit

To Tim in order you responded:

-I’m recounting history; don’t take history as a direct attack on you, assuming you’re white.
-I wasn’t referring to the 1st amendment, I was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 during 1868, which protected citizens from actions by the states, not by other citizens, therefore, federal prosecution of private groups like the Klan became legally questionable. Also I wasn’t stereotyping the white race, I was making an observation of the majority of whites during that time condoning the implementations of KKK members. For proof, I refer you back to the huge power struggles between the democratic and the republicans when it came to reconstructing the US after the Civil War and during Johnson’s Reconstructing Plan.

- Let me break down to you:
African Americans: Self-autonomy removed, chained and enslaved
Native Americans: exterminated, enslaved
Hispanics, self-autonomy taken away e.g. Cuba, caricatured during jingoism during Spanish-American War

I agree with you about the Japanese/Chinese. And although you didn't mention it, even the Jews and concentration camps. The difference however lies in reparation were granted to these races, and it wasn’t to the URMs. For this lack of reparation, Affirmative Action was implemented.

-I wasn’t making a comparison about the US consensus versus college consensus, although a valid assumption could be derived regarding representation. A more obvious yet simpler conclusion from that data I give suggests that there are more white opportunities or “spots” for the freshmen class, thus inherently; there are more representation of whites on campuses. Therefore when someone argues the ignorant and archaic rendition of ‘the URMs are taking my spot’ this is simply not the case. Also you’re analysis saying “These schools can hardly admit someone who doesn't apply” feeds directly to my point, more whites apply therefore more whites are accepted.

Now moving to the 3 prongs I give earlier and the responses you give:
-See my analysis above about stats and more whites applying and less blacks applying, therefore the likelihood of a black-white-equal type choice scenario is a hypothetical yet a very unlikely one.
-“60 point difference is substantial according to the college-board.” (paraphrase) You yourself recognize the bias the College Board might entail. I want to see empirical evidence where 60-point difference serves as a determinant for success and no success in the real world.

By Urmsupporter (Urmsupporter) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:17 am: Edit

hi, I invert this question, I want you to tell me why diversity is bad. And from this deduction, hopefully you will be able to answer your own question.

By Concerns with AA on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:19 am: Edit

Without getting too long, i would like to respond to the original poster (URM supporter or whatever).

First off, i am a white male raised in a military family. Your discrimination crap about underrepresented crap won't cut it. When i look around military bases i see a huge diverse crowd of people of all different races (black, white, asian, hispanics...u name it, it's there), and they are all making decent salaries.

Oh, and as for your stereotype about "white people who hate AA are obviously racist"....this is not true. Because i have been exposed to people of different backgrounds i have never really had the chance to be racist. I am looking at AA for what it is...and it is wrong!

I could go on for hours and preach like you did man (and i'll try not to) but let's look at ur historical crap.

As for all of your "short" (lol) q+a session...i find you somewhat hypocritical. First off, i never did any of that stuff...how come you blame me or the rest of the whites in today's society for that stuff. I know it's sad, but if you're going to go on HISTORY, did you know that very few...less than 1% of the people in the south were the "stereotypical" plantation owner. Most were the white trash yeoman. Now, i know you're prob gonna call me racist, but i'm not. I'm looking at facts here.

As for "us" whites who don't get mad when a white athlete gets in with less than stellar scores....Yes i do (at least). My friends and i have talked alot about the scores of some athletes who get into good schools simply cuz of their athletic talent.

(Oh, and i appreciate you for bringing up the "white trash" thing. Cuz' that would have been an argument against you, but now i can't use it...THE POINT IS IS THAT there are UR people of all races! PERIOD!)

If there is one point i want to make out of all of this, it's this: AA is wrong and here's why.
(this is a valid point)

Going on "URM Supporters" diversity crap for colleges...it shouldn't matter. Does it matter in football or basketball?!?!?!? Say, ur stereotype of Yale is "upper-class dynasty rich preppy white kid". Now, in sports....i don't know percents, but basketball is def. dominated by blacks! and for no particular reason. Why are ivies dominated by whites and asians (for no particular reason)? (i'm kinda goin off subject)....but, does AA apply for UR whites and Asians in athletics??? Wait "URM supporter"....why don't we help some of these underrepresented white and asian athletes get into the NFL and NBA through an athletic AA. Why????.....cuz that is wrong and color shouldn't matter....as Eminem says "color in rapping doesn't matter, say in football, if you can throw a football, no matter what color, you're gonna be a quarterback." Yes, i don't think we see colleges recruiting kids just because of their color so they can add "Diversity" to their team. The skill is the only thing that matters. (and there are still whites playing pro sports, just like there are some URM in topnotch schools).

So, if color doesn't matter in sports, why does it matter in college and academics??

And Tim, u made some nice points.

(sorry for being long)

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit

I don't support AA, but i have to say mr military man that you are wrong. Sports teams and colleges don't share the same goals. Your point isn't valid.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:26 am: Edit

"Racial diversity does not equal intellectual diversity? HA! You’re a fool for believing such an untruth. I suggest you meet more people in the real world."

I have met people in the real world. In my experience, the minorities (indeed, everyone) I know are interesting (or dull) based on their intellect, actions, and ideas, not because of the color of their skin. Until I meet someone who's turned blue from drinking colloidal silver, skin color has not made a person interesting or intellectually diverse to me.

"extermination of the native Americans during pre and post Columbian era"

I'll bite. Tell me how the Europeans slaughtered the Native Americans in the PRE-COLUMBIAN era. I'd really like to hear about it if Leif Ericson or the fabled Templar voyagers perpetrated a genocide.

Then tell me why I, having never killed a Native American, should be punished for that crime.

Tim

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:27 am: Edit

Yeah, URMSupporter, I am saying URMs are scoring 300 points lower.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/undergrad/ucb-95.html

I must admit. You •••••••• well. I particularly enjoy this one:
In the pursuit of diversity, you’ll find the merits needed to make an intelligent collected body as a whole.

Too bad style doesn't make up for substance. Get your facts straight and learn a little about the AA debate before you try to question me again, URMSupporter.


Concerns with AA: I heard "diversity" makes sports teams play better. If it's good for academia, it must be good for sports! I think we should try out for the Bulls!

By . on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:31 am: Edit

Um..."racial" diversity does not necessarily make a team better.....just like in academics it doesn't make the school better

By anon on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:36 am: Edit

oh, and as for you "Hi"...i was making a point...i know they don't share the same goals...but when people talk about sports and academics, most people want it to be fair. Hence, color doesn't matter.

By Pat57575 (Pat57575) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:45 am: Edit

hi, explain why the point isn't valid. Actually, sports teams' and colleges' goals are exactly the same-- earn a strong reputation and make money (in the colleges' case, off of successful alumni who are anxious to give back).

If ivies are going to base potential success on SAT scores, they should do it for everyone.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:52 am: Edit

I will have to read more about the KKK and the 14th amendment now...

"- Let me break down to you:"

That's better. Claiming that ALL MINORITIES suffered ALL those injustices was a bit of hyperbole.

"The difference however lies in reparation were granted to these races, and it wasn’t to the URMs."

Reparation was granted to those individuals, not to those races. The U.S. government interned many Japanese people, and it paid reparations to those Japanese people. The German government incarcerated and tortured many Jews, and it paid reparations to them.

However, Black Person X who is applying to college today hasn't been enslaved, and White Person Y who is also applying hasn't enslaved anyone, so why should their be the receipt or payment of reparations in this area.

To paraphrase a recent article I once read on the concept of group reparations from the government for slavery, "Show me a former slave and I will buy his forty acres and a mule myself."

"there are more white opportunities or “spots” for the freshmen class"

Since quotas were made illegal, there's no such thing as "spots" for groups anymore, only "spots" for individuals. And, since college admissions is almost a zero-sum game (class size is not set in stone, but it cannot expand indefinitely) it is quite possible that someone receiving a racial preference will take the "spot" of someone who would get in if their were no preferences.

"more whites apply therefore more whites are accepted."

I don't see this as a call for preferences at all. It calls for efforts to get more people to apply.

"empirical evidence where 60-point difference serves as a determinant for success and no success"

I really don't know if there is any or if any study has been done. The 60 point difference is a purely statistical figure where you can start to claim meaningful differences between students due to SAT score. You can read all about it in the link I gave(there's a lot of statistical math), but the gist of it is that any single SAT grade has a 30 point margin of error, so a 1000 and a 1060 are within the margin of error to be both equal to 1030.

Tim

By anonymous on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 02:17 am: Edit

at this rate this post will reach 80 posts by Tuesday

By x on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:08 am: Edit

This might seem like a minor point, but since when were reparations offered to Chinese Americans?
Ever since the first Asian people arrived here in the 1700s, they've faced discrimination (anti-chinese movement of the 1870s, anti-Japanese movement in the 1910s and the anti-filipino in the 1920s.)
All throught the 1800s, asian immirants were the primary source of labor in the west, in fact asians made up one-fourth of the CA work force in the mid 1800s.
Now, there were literally hundreds of anti-asian laws.
Asians weren't allowed to be citizens until 1943. The california constitution declared asians "dangerous to the well-being of the state.)
Asians were prohibited from testifying in court against whites, they were excluded from public schools, the naturalization act of 1870 that allowed africans to become citizens excluded Chinese, CA's civil code of 1880 forbade mixed marriaged with asian people, chinese exclusion act, angel island detained thousands of asian immigrants (the ellis island of the west coast).
Basically,Asian americans faced restrictions in every aspact of life: immigration rights, naturalization rights, citizenship rights, land ownership, education, occupation, intermarriage, residence etc... Chinese americans were almost slaves in the jobs they were forced to take and the laws that held them back. Do you know how many Chinese died and were buried with the building of the railroad? And if you really want to go so far back into history, think about how the europeans came into China (opium wars) and destroyed them. Think about the Japanese invasions of China; they killed 300,000 in Nanjing alone.
This is Chinese American history alone. There's japanese, filipino, cambodian, laotian (etc...)too.
Now tell me what reparations chinese individuals/race received. Tell me how asian americans suffered any less than the other minorities you mentioned. How does the fact that asians couldn't even become citizens until the mid 1900s compare with the jingoism of the Spanish american War. Make a case that asian people suffered less.
I am for diversity (can you say that diversity is bad?). Athletes bring their athletic talent, musicians bring their musical talent. Underqualified minorites bring their skin color? Legacies bring...?
So you think AA is right, because those urms have suffered. Asian people have suffered just as much, if not more. Asian history is something that is often ignored and forgotten, but people need to realize how hard asian americans have had to work to make something of themselves. This is unrelated, but think about abercrombie two years ago. Would they ever have created t-shirts poking fun at the enslavement of african americans? Of course not, but somehow it was okay for them to make fun of asians doing the best they could with the jobs no one else wanted.

By Burberry (Burberry) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:17 am: Edit

x, well said. what is your email address? do u have AIM? geez i think every asian as been dying to say these things, but you've really put it all together. i think it's pitiful how our american education system only teaches "european" history and basically ignores every ethnic group throughout history besides jews/blacks. and i think the reason why asian history is often overlooked is because unlike the other struggling minorities, asians have sucked it up, dealt with it, and overcame it intead of whining and accomplishing nothing (besides Jewish people, who have also worked hard and accomplished a lot). but in a way, this endurance (and silence) is now biting us back in the ass (this reverse AA that is currently occurring); we're not speaking up is the problem... do we have an NAACP? no... an asian history month? no... is chinese new year officially recognized like kwanzaa or hanukuh? no... and the asian community could certainly use more ppl like you. perhaps if we came together and spoke up (like practically every other ethnic group in america has) this reverse AA crap wouldn't be happening right now.
thank you, x, whoever you are.

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:27 am: Edit

"hi, explain why the point isn't valid. Actually, sports teams' and colleges' goals are exactly the same-- earn a strong reputation and make money (in the colleges' case, off of successful alumni who are anxious to give back)."

The goal of collegiate sports teams is to win. Thus, they take the best players availabe, black or white. At most colleges, most collegiate sports aren't an important source of income. Basketball and football can generate a fair amout of revenue, but nearly every other sport costs money.

The goal of a college is to educate and prepare youth to enter the working world, in which case the exposure to diversity can be considered (I'm not saying it is, or isn't) a valuable asset. I don't know where you got the idea that colleges just exist to "earn a strong reputation and make money."

Diversity is not important in creating a winning sports team. It can possibly be considered important in education. That's why is point is not valid.

By irked on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:36 am: Edit

I actually have a question that I hope someone can clarify ... since everyone on this rather 'virile' board seems to know their history (and forgive me if this sounds condescending .. it is really not so) what was the intention of aa? I always perceived it as an opportunity to have these now educated urms return to their underpriviledged communities, serve them (not forever but for some time) and become examples for future generations. Here's my opinion: if that is the case, I think aa has genuine merits (particularly in the native american community that desperately needs medical services). But if the result is urms joining the ranks and becoming peons of corporate society who give back in the form of tax-deductible contributions to United Negro College Fund I think the merits of aa are questionable (ex: Clarence Thomas who attended law school because of aa, then decries it, do I smell hyprocrisy?). Does anyone agree? or not?

By Shelinda (Shelinda) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:48 am: Edit

Umm, I don't know if this has been said already (plus I'm british so I don't know the "inner-workings" of the American higher ed admissions system), but how is AA different from using a "legacy" to get into a good uni?
People are gonna use whatever means they can to make the best of themselves...so the only way to make the admissions process fairer is to get rid of BOTH AA and legacy, and just base it on potential. But since that isn't gonna happen, what's wrong with AA?

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:54 am: Edit

AA and legacy are both wrong. I think you will find that the majority of people against AA are against legacy too. There's just less debate because the majority of EVERYONE is against legacy, except the colleges themselves and some of those who are benefitting. It's a money thing for the colleges, the idea is that the alumni will donate more if they feel it will give their kids a better legacy advantage.

Tim

By aaaa on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:17 am: Edit

AA for Asian Americans, starting tomorrow...

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:26 am: Edit

tim,
im not sure legacy is all that bad. im not sure of the numbers, but it could be that the money contributed by alums is so significant that it greatly contributes to all students' experiences at the college. if legacy were discontinued, it could be possible that the overall experience would diminish due to lack of funding and the tradition and community may evaporate. Also, without legacies, a lot of financial aid might not be available in which case only the rich could attend anyway. Thus legacies may, in fact, benefit the poor. I don't know the amount or how important the money contributed by legacies is, but i am just trying to play devil's advocate. i would think it's worth letting in a few hundred rich kids to allow many bright, nonwealthy students to attend.

By chopstick on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 10:59 am: Edit

The SAT is used to measure how well you can read and do the math problems. All other things equal, not accounting for race, can you in good conscience accept someone with an 1150 SAT over someone with a 1450 SAT. That 300 point difference indicates that the 1450 person can comprehend writing better and solve math better. How can you admit someone who can't answer the easy critical reading questions yet?
Oh yeah, and AA is like paying reparations for slavery today. Why should I pay reparations when I never owned a slave and someone never was a slave? I have not inherited the sins of my fathers if there were any and no other person inherited the suffering from slavery of their fathers. Don't punish me for the opportunities prevented from a generation ago because I didn't do it.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Has anyone noticed that America's public schools have become resegregated? The white schools and the black schools are clearly different in revenue, supplies, location, etc. This is how we create stereotypes and generalizations of each other. Many whites don't even know how to act in front of black folks. All they do is look on their local telvision news station and generalize that most blacks act like the typical criminal. A black person cannot be as smart as an Asian or white person simply because black folks are "lazy."

By poor hispanic on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:06 pm: Edit

It is good to know that in 40-50 years hispanics will be the majority and whites the minority so that the bias of the SATs can be cut off, a test on language is no determinatin of your intelligence, and so the SATs obviously don't serve to indicate the qualifications of someone whose second languages is English. By the way I got an 800 math and a 700 english and I'm a dirt poor Hispanic whose second language is English.

By Poor Hispanic on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:09 pm: Edit

I say clean up the SATs so that the onus isn't on language and a little bit more balanced amongst the subjects other subjects add some History and Science for example

By aaaa on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Where is the ••••••• reparation for Asian Americans? (Why do we need them? See the post by x) I demand we Asian Americans get as much AA as blacks and Hispanics do! Hell, AA is all about reparations, right?

By anonymous on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Don't need to, that's what the ACT is for.

By CMD on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Chinese people work hard.
They get to good colleges.
End of discussion.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:34 pm: Edit

The reason there a strong pull for one language is that we do not want Congress to turn into the UN. Discourse and communication with a common language is vital. Look at Quebec and Canada. A lot of tension is caused by having different languages. So, no, we should keep English because language is a vital part of life.

Most Asians don't want special treatment like blacks and Hispanics. Even in sectors where Asians get AA (public contracts), Asians tend to avoid using the race card. Most Asians want equal treatment, not special treatment.

By Poor Hispanic on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:54 pm: Edit

The Country has no official language. The ACT still has most of the aspects of the SAT, where language biases in. Pure math has none of these little probelms though.

By anonymous on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

The whites who go to the top schools automatically assume blacks and hispanics are killers and criminals since they were never around them. I think by using AA the colleges would change their view of minorities and diversify the college population.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Try debating reform issues in Congress in both english and spanish. It can't done.
ACT has an English section too, the last time I checked.

You sound like a part of a new immigrant hispanic class that is shunning America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/meltingpot.htm


Maria Jacinto, with her husband, Aristeo, and one of their five children, speaks only Spanish. "When my skin turns white and my hair turns blonde, then I'll be an American," she says.
(By William Branigin
– The Washington Post)

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Yes, ALL whites think ALL blacks and hispanics are killers and criminals.

Who's the racist again?


What AA does is make people think blacks and hispanics get in only because of their race.

By dazed on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 02:04 pm: Edit

OMG..you ppl were up 'til 4,5,6 AM talkingabout affirmative action!

thats dedication, lawyers-to-be

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

To anonymous -
The whites who go to the top schools automatically assume blacks and hispanics are killers and criminals since they were never around them. I think by using AA the colleges would change their view of minorities and diversify the college population.
==========================================
Yes, a person who finally realizes the real use of affirmative action!!! Too many whites live in segregated villages and think that blacks are out to rob them! By letting them exposed to diversity before the work world can truly enhance their character and perspective about people as a whole. This world is too diverse to actually believe only whites or asians exist.

By aaaa on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:48 pm: Edit

"Most Asians don't want special treatment like blacks and Hispanics."

I don't think so! Go ask the Asian kids in this forum. Ask them if they like a little AA help to get them into Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech, etc.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Is that how rationalize racial discrimination, tenisghs. That throwing in under qualified blacks will somehow cause a campus's student body to be enhanced in character? You're the only one that believes whites only believe whites and asians exist. So, please, stop setting up straw men and start debating the real topic.

Most Asian kids want to get in on their merit, not because of their race. If you're the few Asians that want handouts, then that's your own personal moral failing.

By aaaa on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:03 pm: Edit

"Most Asian kids want to get in on their merit, not because of their race. If you're the few Asians that want handouts, then that's your own personal moral failing."

How many Asians do you know? How many Asians have you talked to? And are you saying that all those blacks and Hispanics and Asians demanding for AA are all morally corrupted???

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:05 pm: Edit

"Many whites don't even know how to act in front of black folks."

There's a special way to act in front of black folks? And here I was basing my actions upon the individual and not the skin color. Shame on me.

Tim

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Trust me, I've talked to a lot more Asians then you, aaaa. A significant amount are brainwashed into believing AA is an anti-discriminatory measure. The ones who know the truth are adamantly opposed to AA.


Those who demand special treatment while ignoring the innocent victims that are caused by special treatment to them are morally corrupt. Of course, it's hard judge a child who has not had the time to develop his moral character. Talk to me in a few years and tell me if you still want welfare based on your race.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:24 pm: Edit

"I say clean up the SATs so that the onus isn't on language and a little bit more balanced amongst the subjects other subjects add some History and Science for example "

Like it or not, English is the United States' culture and heritage, just like Spanish is in Latin America.

First off, do you really think that someone could perform in college if they were unable to speak English? They would be unable to communicate with most everyone else on campus.

Now, the SAT Verbal is a rather valid test for those who spoke English as a first language. Of course those who learned English recently will have more trouble with it, so the TOEFL was invented. Perhaps the College Board should look into creating other language versions of the SAT I Verbal, if the TOEFL is not enough.

As a note on adding other subjects - the subjects would still be added in English. It would also further defeat the purpose of the SAT, which is supposed to be a general aptitude test not based upon the student's curriculum. The Math section in my experience was based on 9th grade math or lower, while the Verbal section was mostly unrelated to school classes. Of course, the "aptitude" idea of SAT is already damaged by things like prep and the fact that the verbal section does have to be in a language, but the addition of subject tests would probably only damage it further.

In general, I have nothing but respect for immigrants, but I do believe that when they come to the United States they should begin learning English. If I moved to Mexico or Puerto Rico, I would learn to speak Spanish.

Tim

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:44 pm: Edit

To no one -

Who says I am Asian?

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

To no one -

Who says that the majority of blacks admitted under AA are underqualified? Are you an admissions director?

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

To Tim -

"Many whites don't even know how to act in front of black folks."

There's a special way to act in front of black folks? And here I was basing my actions upon the individual and not the skin color. Shame on me.
===================================
What I meant is that many whites approach blacks with negative expectations, and they wonder later why blacks didn't even take them seriously.

By someone on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 04:55 pm: Edit

i feel that the whole AA law needs to be revised a little and maybe even taken out. That is why i applied to private schools because they take into account your race but that is not the deciding factor. I am asian and is frustrates me how many asians get rejected from good schools when they are more capable then many of the people. Africans Americans get in easier, but dont forget the rich whites who can just call up a ivy and send them money to have their kid attend that school in the fall.

By Wilson Li on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:02 pm: Edit

As a Chinese American, I don't exactly have it easy when applying to colleges. However I along with many other Chinese and fellow Asian Americans want to get into my schools of choice through merit. I don't want any special advantages like AA even though my people like many other minorities have faced discrimination in the past. If AA is about reparations than I say it should either repay everyone or just get rid itself period. I'm all for the latter option. I say nobody gets special advantages, not URM's or overrepresented minorities like the Chinese.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

From someone -

I am asian and is frustrates me how many asians get rejected from good schools when they are more capable then many of the people. Africans Americans get in easier, but dont forget the rich whites who can just call up a ivy and send them money to have their kid attend that school in the fall.
===========================================
And it amazes me how Asians make up 5% of the national population, yet make more than 15% of the college campus population. You can't even get 13% of African-Americans (most prestigious campuses are 6-9% African-American) on these campuses, yet blacks get in "easier.." sure...

If everything should be fair, it should be reflective of the national population, but it's not like that. Asians have a better chance than blacks and hispanics to get in.

By someone on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:08 pm: Edit

why should a african american or a hispanic get in over a asian just because they are of that race. also u fail to realize that asians are not all one race. Many races make up "asian" and that is why it is unfair.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:16 pm: Edit

To someone -

Is it me or you just didn't read what I said? If you're complaing that most blacks and hispanics are unqualified, what about the white people that get in? I'm sure MANY OF THEM are unqualified. Like I said earlier, if you actually think a black or hispanic person is taking an Asian's applicant spot, you need a reality check. Asians make up 20% of the college campus, more so than the national average! Accepting students based on merit only doesn't add ANYTHING to the college campus. Majority of the candidates have EXCELLENT credentials. That doesn't mean those candidates will automatically be accepted. If that student was not unique to the admission director's eyes, guess what? Chances are that they will be deferred/denied. Blaming your deferral/denial on some URMS is stupidity and racist. Blacks and hispanics get deferrals/denials too. That's all I have to say.

By aaaa on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:19 pm: Edit

I am Asian and I want some AA to help my ass into an ivy league. Why the •••• are all those blacks and Hispanics getting AA while the suffering Asians are left out???

By someone on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit

i just feel that many people are jipped out of admission because of race and i do not find that fair. I feel there is a better way for black hispanics and even whites to be competative and that is through hardwork. I am a indian and i do not like to grouped as an asian because that does not represent me. That is just how i feel and all I am doing is working even harder so that i can be at the top even with the odds that are against me

By hispanicsdick on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:24 pm: Edit

"why should a african american or a hispanic get in over a asian just because they are of that race. also u fail to realize that asians are not all one race. Many races make up "asian" and that is why it is unfair."

You too failed to realize that Hispanics is made up of MANY ••••••• races...

By Joshua Tran on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:28 pm: Edit

"And it amazes me how Asians make up 5% of the national population, yet make more than 15% of the college campus population."

So? What's your point? It's called hard work in case you didn't know.

"You can't even get 13% of African-Americans

And that's Asians/white's fault because?

(most prestigious campuses are 6-9% African-American) on these campuses, yet blacks get in "easier.." sure..."

Which means that even with AA working for blacks and working against Asians, Asians still represent the top schools more than blacks. LOL no wonder why URM's want AA, could you imagine how many Asians there would be if AA was abolished? HAHAHA

"If everything should be fair, it should be reflective of the national population,"

I'd like to quote someone on this board. "Racial Diversity does not equal Intellectual Diversity". If Intellectual Diversity means all white and Asian, then so be it.

" but it's not like that. Asians have a better chance than blacks and hispanics to get in."

Such as? What about me? I'm Asian and I'm dirt poor. Hell my parents came from Vietnam with literally nothing. My dad works night and day like a dog as a mechanic and my mom recently got laid off from her supermarket. I know many more Vietnamese and other Asians in my situations. How were my chances better? I still managed excellents grades and test scores and I'm UC bound. LOL the ignorance of some people.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Accepting students based on merit only increases the intellectual quality of the graduates. We don't want that, do we?

The AAMC says that 80% of URMs in med school only got in because of their race. Yes, most URMs ARE under qualified and only get in because of their race. Seriously, if you're going debate the topic, at least make some effort to know some of the facts.

By disgruntled on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:33 pm: Edit

YOU KNOW WHAT I HATE THE MOST. ALL YOU NON-

MINORITIES GET MAD AT US BECAUSE WE TAKE

ADVANTAGE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. LIKE YOU

WOULDN'T!!! HATE THE SYSTEM (WHICH I AGREE,

SUCKS) BUT NOT THE PERSON. THATS TO ALL YOU

BITTER REJECTS WHO TELL US TO GO TO HELL FOR

MAKING USE OF WHATS THERE

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:34 pm: Edit

No, I wouldn't.

Please press the caps button on your keyboard.

By EVEN MORE DISGRUNTLED on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 05:36 pm: Edit

to no one:
i was just EMPHASIZING my ANGER,ok? sorry to hurt your eyes.

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:00 pm: Edit

The argument that Asians only make up 5% of the national population but the fact that they make up 15% of elite college population...an implication that seems to say that Asians receive special treatment is FALSE!

Asians outperform all other races relative to the general population...and that is the reason why there is high representation. In fact, if AA were done away with, Asians would represent an even GREATER percentage as evidenced by the year immediately following the Prop 206 debacle.

African Americans, who represent roughly 5-15% of the population in Ivy League colleges are OVERREPRESENTED. At Harvard, where URMs comprise 18% of the population, most of those slots were unearned in terms of merit. 18% is roughly 290 spots in the freshman class! Sure, there are URMs that deserve admission based on merit but in no way would there be 290! In fact, there aren't 290 African Americans in the US who can score Harvard's AVERAGE SAT score of 1490!

The difference between Asians and African Americans is that Asians choose to work hard and attempt to get into elite schools on merit. If Asians were to simply sit back and argue that representation at colleges should reflect national population statistics...sure, then the Asian population would fall. But this doesnt happen because Asian culture has establish a high importance for education. African Americans, on the other hand, simply sit back and cry and whine about representation and fair play without taking into consideration that them being reward for laziness screws other non-URMs.

Furthermore, if population statistics were a guideline for college population representation...Asian population should be HIGHER in elite colleges. Why? Because elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford are WORLDCLASS universities and should reflect world population statistics...increasing Asian populations from 20% to 45%. But we can't have that...we gotta screw qualified Asians to make room for less qualified African Americans who have a Malcom, a Johnnie, an Al, a Louis to shout Affirmative Action for them...lol.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:05 pm: Edit

To no one -

Accepting students based on merit only increases the intellectual quality of the graduates. We don't want that, do we?

The AAMC says that 80% of URMs in med school only got in because of their race. Yes, most URMs ARE under qualified and only get in because of their race. Seriously, if you're going debate the topic, at least make some effort to know some of the facts.
=========================================
Is the AAMC a conservative group? If so, that is not a valid source. Conservs make up any kind of information to prove a point. Sometimes you question the validity. "Ooo blacks are more likely to be criminals! Watch your backs around blacks folks." Uh huh yeah, stereotype black folks like we all kill folks. I have yet to see a white person sheilding themselves away from me because I am black. To make it even more hilarious, if that ever happens to me, I should just say "BOO" to scare his stupid a$$ away.

Anyways, I was accepted into the University of Michigan. I have a black friend that applied to Michigan and got deferred. She had higher test scores than me, yet my high school transcript was loaded with advanced classes (honors, APs, etc.) while she had only a few in a predominately white school. I did well on my AP exams too. My GPA was also higher too. Don't be jealous because I was qualified. I am not taking anyone else's spot. If I don't want to go to the school, someone on the waiting list can happily take my spot. I showed interest in the school, and BAM, I was accepted 2 months later.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:08 pm: Edit

To someone -

I feel there is a better way for black hispanics and even whites to be competative and that is through hardwork
================================
How can you do that when all schools in America are not equal? College admission officers know what schools they are reviewing (school profiles.) They aren't stupid to admit 100% of students from the top-performing schools. Obviously, this will be a racial AND socioclass issue.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:18 pm: Edit

AAMC = Association of American Medical Colleges.

They are pro-AA.


Seriously, why do pro-AA people doubletalk so much? If so many URMs could get in because of their merit, why would need AA?

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Are you still questioning the validity of my data, tenisghs?

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:21 pm: Edit

The Stanford Alumni Association Newsletter released that the average African American scored 171 points LOWER than the average white. That is almost THREE TIMES the significant deviation that the collegeboard recognizes (60 difference is considered significant). This doesn't say that all URMs are not qualified, as some probably are. What it says is that MOST are indeed underqualified, and by implication, cheating a spot out from more qualified whites and Asians.

Check the data our for yourself on the Stanford Alumni Newsletter, September issue.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

To asdf -

African Americans, who represent roughly 5-15% of the population in Ivy League colleges are OVERREPRESENTED. At Harvard, where URMs comprise 18% of the population, most of those slots were unearned in terms of merit.
===============================================
Oh, so if blacks make up 13% of the Harvard's population (I have no idea since this is not a claimed fact), they are overrepresented? Dayum, that's reflective of the black population in America. That is as fair as it can be. Asians overrepresent every prestigious college in this nation.


The difference between Asians and African Americans is that Asians choose to work hard and attempt to get into elite schools on merit. If Asians were to simply sit back and argue that representation at colleges should reflect national population statistics...sure, then the Asian population would fall. But this doesnt happen because Asian culture has establish a high importance for education. African Americans, on the other hand, simply sit back and cry and whine about representation and fair play without taking into consideration that them being reward for laziness screws other non-URMs.
==================================
And you know what? There are many Asians that don't even fall into that "work hard" mentality. They suffer the most because they aren't MIT geniuses. They are normal people who have a personality. Now it's black folks who are lazy and uneducated? By your remarks, you are just spewing racist ideas and making yourself more idiotic. We can save the hate and jealousy. There has been a report that blacks and hispanics are just as concerned about their children's education as whites and asians. I don't know where the hell you get your information from.

Asdf, please come back and tell me that most blacks in America are lazy and uneducated. I will like to review your report. Make sure it's reflective of the nation (East side or West Side or both), not your segregated predominately-white fairy tale land.


Furthermore, if population statistics were a guideline for college population representation...Asian population should be HIGHER in elite colleges. Why? Because elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford are WORLDCLASS universities and should reflect world population statistics...increasing Asian populations from 20% to 45%. But we can't have that...we gotta screw qualified Asians to make room for less qualified African Americans who have a Malcom, a Johnnie, an Al, a Louis to shout Affirmative Action for them...lol.
=========================================
God, you are so stupid. Since when the United States became the United States of the World? The U.S. should put more emphasis on domestic affairs, not international affairs. It's obvious that the international population is not huge either on some college campuses. Even though this world is preodominately Asian, this country is predominately WHITE and BLACK. I'm not saying to screw Asians, but this is the United States. If Asians want to protest against AA, then they need to make a VOICE since they are such "geniuses". Obviously I don't see any of these Asian demonstrations or political groups. In fact, I see the Asians supporting AA!!!

By Equal Justice on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:24 pm: Edit

I find it ironic that a lot of the people complaining here got there SATs by spending thre way to it (don't get offended if u didn't).
I don't like AA (im hispanic) but I don't go ask for SATs to be the sole parameter for admissions cause there are people who'll figure out a way of spending there way to a 1600. I believe in Equal Opportunity not Equality of Results thats communism.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:27 pm: Edit

AAMC = Association of American Medical Colleges.

They are pro-AA.


Seriously, why do pro-AA people doubletalk so much? If so many URMs could get in because of their merit, why would need AA?
=========================================

Because merit is not the only ticket to your acceptance to a university. Any college admissions officer can tell you that. If a school tends to be liberal, like ToP 25 schools are, they will defend AA with a mighty sword! They are the leading universities in the nation, and perhaps the world. They find diversity just as important as merit.

By Urmsupporter (Urmsupporter) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:30 pm: Edit

I go to sleep for one night and run some errands today and I’m shocked at the growth of this post. Obviously, Affirmative Action is a very sensitive topic, as of all racial topics, but through the pursuit of more “educated” discourse, we should at least strive from the inclination that finding of a general consensus might emerge. I’m a firm believer of Mills and his Marketplace of Ideas. Now because of the mere voluminous of these responses, it’s nearly impossible to make direct responses to some of the points and validity of the arguments presented. With a superficial skimming, I’ve decided to respond to what I deem as very important topics needing to be properly addressed:

First to this Asian American issue started by X:

A point highly taken, and I partially concede the validity of your arguments. I agree Asian Americans have been oppressed, discriminated against, exploited for labor, faced restriction/and unfair immigration laws, and the list goes on.

Yet ironically, and not to reduce the tribulations the Asian race has suffered, nearly every other race or group of people has had such adversaries sometime during their history: we have the immigration restrictions for the poor Europeans seeking work during the Great Depression, the unfair child labor laws during the end of the 19th century in the factories, the exploitation of women and the blatant hypocrisy for not letting them vote, the importation laws expounded on the British after the American Revolution, the immigration laws to curve the number of foreign races during the campaign of jingoism after the Spanish-American War, the huge disparities between the very rich and the very poor during the Great Depression and the struggle of the poor to survive and so on.

My point however is to explain the uselessness of trying to create a weighing mechanism to determine which races have suffered more and which have suffered less. You mention the California laws about not letting Asians enter California during 1943 and quoting the constitution. Remember the rationale at this time: Roosevelt drove the nationwide fear that Asian American’s ACTUALLY POSED A SECURITY THREAT ON THE domestic home front. Recall Pearl Harbor and how the war started. After the war ended however and the nation became an uproar on human rights mentioning how these camps and exclusion became a nationwide unconstitutional and doing so, reparation in the form of money was then paid to the sufferers of the camps. Not to again justify any actions, but you have take the context of any the exploitations.

This however is not about the rationale of the Asian American suffering; it’s about the implementation of Affirmative Action. The main motivation for Washington D.C. implementing Affirmative Action was to give equal opportunity to the minorities who otherwise would have been denied this opportunity; and statistically after the implementation, the raise in benefits within corporate America and the higher education for underrepresented minorities have risen.

Now to somewhat appease your anger for not allowing Asians on Affirmative Action: as according to the book A is for admission “Remember for a school to receive federal aid, it must report the number of African American Students, Native American students, Hispanic students, and Asian-American Students. However for affirmative-action purposes, only the first three groups are counted. It’s not that Asian-Americans are not minority in the United States, it is just that they are not under-represented in Ivy league applicant pools. In fact, the Ivies get many Asian-American applicants, so there is no problem with their being underrepresented.”

Hopefully now you can draw your own valid conclusions about if minority counts seem low within a university, what necessary consequences might be implemented.. Also in the process of writing this, I’ve answered other arguments on this board also.

You rant is valid one, and nevertheless I do not dismiss it.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Liberals are very generous, especially when they give away someone else's opportunity.

So why do presidents of universities like Bollinger support AA? Because there is no chance in hell that him, his children or anyone he cares about would be discriminated against.


Nice appeal to authority argument. Should I quote all of the judges who found AA to be illegal?

By Urmsupporter (Urmsupporter) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:31 pm: Edit

To asdf:
You’re ignorance appalls me, and more importantly your lack of substantial empirical data and warrants shows me you do not know how to properly support an argument.

“The difference between Asians and African Americans is that Asians choose to work hard and attempt to get into elite schools on merit.” HA. There is no such difference and making such an invalid generalization proves my first point. There is no difference especially intellectual difference between Asians and African Americans, and saying otherwise harbors unnecessary stereotypes, prejudices, and racism.

Hmmm… How about this truth:

The reason why more than the majority of African Americans make $20 million+ in professional sports is because African Americans understand the importance of hard work, determination, competition and CHOOSE to have the will to succeed when the physical world’s adversaries faces against them and to exploit via dedication the physical and mental boundaries to achieve whatever goals needed to obtain a greater good. However, Asians are only good at staying home, taking a very linear intellectual process to memorize minuscule facts in textbooks, and then regurgitating those useless facts on tests; and then taking a another very linear intellectual process by memorizing all possible combinations on the SAT to artificially raise their intellectual ability. However, Asians are still GENUINLY good at making great Chinese food and for cleaning and starching my clothes once a week.

Sorry to play this game with you, but I rest my case.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:32 pm: Edit

I will have to agree with Equal Justice.

And asdf -

The Stanford Alumni Association Newsletter released that the average African American scored 171 points LOWER than the average white. That is almost THREE TIMES the significant deviation that the collegeboard recognizes (60 difference is considered significant). This doesn't say that all URMs are not qualified, as some probably are. What it says is that MOST are indeed underqualified, and by implication, cheating a spot out from more qualified whites and Asians.
===============================================
By your logic, asdf, test scores should be the sole parameter to determine if an applicant is qualified? You make me laugh. The SAT is not even a good test, which many universities agree, to base the final results of an applicant. The SAT is a monopoly that makes billions every year. So much for student achievement.

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:35 pm: Edit

tenisghs,

its already clear from all your posts that you are RACIST. you want to keep qualified people (Asians) down by your double-talking and implications that African Americans work just as hard as Asians.

you ask us to substantiate out arguments with data but you yourself present none in your own case. when we do provide data, you choose to double-talk or ignore posts.

you speak the following: 1) "There has been a report that blacks and hispanics are just as concerned about their children's education as whites and asians. " 2) "In fact, I see the Asians supporting AA!!!"

where are your statistics to verify your claims? if you can't come up with any, you either 1) ignorant or 2) a racist. i suspect the latter.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit

However poor SATs are as an discriminator for merit, race is infinitely poorer.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:36 pm: Edit

From URMSupporter -

However, Asians are still GENUINLY good at making great Chinese food and for cleaning and starching my clothes once a week.

Sorry to play this game with you, but I rest my case.
===================================
LOL, I had me some good Chinese food last night. ';)

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Before I continue with my post, ladies and gentlemen, this person had chosen the alternate route. He has chosen to call me a racist because he has nothing better else to rebut to me. Therefore he resolves to calling me a racist in hopes he can stir up support. This is hilarious!
===================================
From asdf -

tenisghs,

its already clear from all your posts that you are RACIST. you want to keep qualified people (Asians) down by your double-talking and implications that African Americans work just as hard as Asians.

you ask us to substantiate out arguments with data but you yourself present none in your own case. when we do provide data, you choose to double-talk or ignore posts.

you speak the following: 1) "There has been a report that blacks and hispanics are just as concerned about their children's education as whites and asians. " 2) "In fact, I see the Asians supporting AA!!!"

where are your statistics to verify your claims? if you can't come up with any, you either 1) ignorant or 2) a racist. i suspect the latter.
================================================
Please show me a post where I am racist to Asians. Please, asdf. Your humor amazes me. I am a firm believer of diversity, and I refuse to believe that merit should only be rewarded on test scores. The End.

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:43 pm: Edit

tenisgh, URMsupporter,

The reason why more than the majority of African Americans make $20 million+ in professional sports is because African Americans understand the importance of hard work, determination, competition and CHOOSE to have the will to succeed when the physical world’s adversaries faces against them and to exploit via dedication the physical and mental boundaries to achieve whatever goals needed to obtain a greater good.
========================
lol! what a generalization. African Americans arent the only ones that work hard to compete. this statement is just an idiotic statement.


However, Asians are only good at staying home, taking a very linear intellectual process to memorize minuscule facts in textbooks, and then regurgitating those useless facts on tests; and then taking a another very linear intellectual process by memorizing all possible combinations on the SAT to artificially raise their intellectual ability.
====================================
clearly, this is a generalization as well. i call you racist.


However, Asians are still GENUINLY good at making great Chinese food and for cleaning and starching my clothes once a week.
=====================================
more racism.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Intellectualism and merit is equated to "memorizing useless facts" and "regurgitating them on tests"

This speaks well of what kind of person you are, URMsupporter.

By bump on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:02 pm: Edit

bump

By bump on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit

BUMP....YEAH!!! I got the 100th response!!!
YEAH!!!

By hello on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:03 pm: Edit

How can you use a few african american athletes to represent the entire black population? The pro-athletes make up what. . . like .000001% of the entire population? That's no indicator of their hard work. That's like saying white people work hard because there are two brilliant white physicists at Harvard.

By ORMSupporter on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:04 pm: Edit

"However, Asians are still GENUINLY good at making great Chinese food and for cleaning and starching my clothes once a week."

HAHA you've been paying too much attention to Abercrombie. Chinese laundry in the U.S is such 100 years ago. Meanwhile, Blacks are genuinely good at living on welfare, populating the prisons in America, selling drugs, rising crime statistics off the charts and working for rich Asian bosses. Sorry to play this game with you, but I rest my case.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:13 pm: Edit

asdf
lol! what a generalization. African Americans arent the only ones that work hard to compete. this statement is just an idiotic statement.
==============================================
I don't know if you're Asian or white, but I would like to see your Asian a$$ on that football field or basketball court. Wait a second, you will never be there. Why? Cuz you don't work out endless hours on daily routines or pump iron to get into a fitted shape. Your Asian a$$ will be crushed into the dirt of the football field(unless you're Polynesian). Shut up.

By Equal Justice on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Make SAT of a more challenging sort and there would be no need for AA, hell if u need a calculator for the current math section then u don't deserve to go to any good college

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:16 pm: Edit

How about those Chinese monks who dedicate their life in honing their body in the martial arts? Are they physical enough for you?

Of course, what does all of this have to do with academia?

By AA is Reverse Discrimination on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:20 pm: Edit

A black kid with a high GPA and a 1600= Guaranteed admissions to any school

A Chinese kid with a high GPA and a 1600= Rejection from half the schools he applies to.

I rest my case.

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:32 pm: Edit

tenishgh,

i've already proven that you're a racist...from your laughing at the chinese food and laundromat comment to your anti-Asian generalizations about athletics.

dont even start about "kicking ass." lol. ONE Asian martial arts grandmaster could probably take out the starting lineup of any URM basketball team.

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:34 pm: Edit

We will see what happens with the new SAT in 2005, although the changes to the SAT have traditionally been to make it easier.

Just my guesses, in 2005 verbal will become a complete joke at least at the elite level as all the logic questions are replaced with reading comprehension.

The mean is a little high on Writing, but not too much so I don't know what effect that will have.

Math might actually become harder with the addition of Algebra II problems, but that depends on how much they shift the focus from "Mathematical Aptitude" to "Material taught in class."

Tim

By asdf on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

tim,

it doesnt matter that the SAT is changing. URMs will get in no matter what due to AA's reverse discrimination. low SAT scores mean nothing when it comes to URMs.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Ok, enough of this crap. A person kicking another person's ass has nothing to do with college admissions.

The fact is colleges are using race as a discriminating factor in admissions. To justify racial discrimination on the grounds that it somehow enriches a campus in "diversity" is a very flimsy argument.

To take someone's RIGHT to be judged upon his merit takes more justification then this fake skin color diversity.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:40 pm: Edit

A Chinese kid with a high GPA and a 1600= Rejection from half the schools he applies to.

I rest my case.
================================================

Oh, because MANY Chinese students have 1600 SATs (almost normal) to begin with in the application pool, it's discrimintion if the colleges try to weed out some of the 1600s for well-rounded students? Idiot.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:42 pm: Edit

Well-rounded? And blacks just happen to be more "well rounded" then whites and asians?


I love code words.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:44 pm: Edit

If you have a 3.3/1300 and you get into harvard, you're not getting in because you're "well rounded"
You're getting in because of your skin color. Period.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:46 pm: Edit

tenishgh,

i've already proven that you're a racist...from your laughing at the chinese food and laundromat comment to your anti-Asian generalizations about athletics.

dont even start about "kicking ass." lol. ONE Asian martial arts grandmaster could probably take out the starting lineup of any URketball team.
===========================================
Yes, but can this Asian martial artist (once again a stereotype....all Asians know martial arts) play football or basketball with black/white men? I will love to see an Asian straight from China, India, or Japan as a line defensemen.

I'm now a racist because it's such a rarity to see Asians in football? Yeah sure....I would love to see more Asians in basketball, since it's becoming a popular sport in the Far East. But the Asians lack HEIGHT. Hey, let's see how Houston's new "Chinese" player plays in the NBA.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:51 pm: Edit

From no one -

Well-rounded? And blacks just happen to be more "well rounded" then whites and asians?


I love code words.
===============================================
And where did I say that blacks are more well-rounded than whites and asians? Stop creating mountains out of words I've never said.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit

From no one -
If you have a 3.3/1300 and you get into harvard, you're not getting in because you're "well rounded"
You're getting in because of your skin color. Period.
===============================================
And there are whites that get into Harvard with stats like that too. Discrimination?

By girl on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:53 pm: Edit

you guys are both being pretty racist actually...

By girl on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

you both are being pretty racist I think

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:54 pm: Edit

What the hell, please, let's stop arguing about sports and ninjas and all that. There are obviously physical differences in the races but we are talking about mental matters here.

"1600 SATs (almost normal)"

Even for Asians, 1600 SAT is exceptional. In fact, the Asian average for 2002 was 1070 compared to the White average of 1060.(1)

Tim

(1) College Board's Report on College Bound Seniors, Table 7

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2002/pdf/CBS2002Report.pdf
Tim

By girl on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:55 pm: Edit

woops i thought it didnt work the first time...my bad

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:57 pm: Edit

tenishgs:
Legacy is wrong. AA is wrong.

Legacy's existence does not justify AA's existence.

By x on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 07:58 pm: Edit

It is because it is pointless to argue which minority has been more disadvantaged (since "nearly every other race has had such adversaries sometime during their history), that reparation in the form of aa for urms is wrong.

I am asian american and I'm sorry if it came off like I wanted to be included in aa. I don't. I'm perfectly fine with getting into college based on my own merit. I don't want special treatment nor do I think I deserve to get in more because Asian people have suffered in history.

tenisghs- why should admissions at elite colleges reflect the national population?
There are 3000 colleges in the U.S. and really, anyone who wants to attend college can. If you want to go back to the sports comparison. Yes you're right. There are very few asians in the sports arena. Should pro-level sports reflect te nation's population? I don't think so. Take the best people. And in admissions, take the most qualified candidates regardless of skin color.
================================================
However, Asians are only good at staying home, taking a very linear intellectual process to memorize minuscule facts in textbooks, and then regurgitating those useless facts on tests; and then taking a another very linear intellectual process by memorizing all possible combinations on the SAT to artificially raise their intellectual ability. However, Asians are still GENUINLY good at making great Chinese food and for cleaning and starching my clothes once a week.
=================================================
I don't know if you're Asian or white, but I would like to see your Asian a$$ on that football field or basketball court. Wait a second, you will never be there. Why? Cuz you don't work out endless hours on daily routines or pump iron to get into a fitted shape. Your Asian a$$ will be crushed into the dirt of the football field(unless you're Polynesian). Shut up.
=================================================

URM supporter, in the beginning I actually thought your points were well argued, though I didn't agree with them. But, I guess your true feelings and true personality come through, don't they?

tenisghs- I'm sorry, but I could really care less about pumping iron. And I definitely would be crushed into the dirt of the football field (I'm a 115 lb asian girl). How does that have anything to do with aa in admissions to colleges?

By x on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

"If everything should be fair, it should be reflective of the national population, but it's not like that. Asians have a better chance than blacks and hispanics to get in.
"Your humor amazes me. I am a firm believer of diversity, and I refuse to believe that merit should only be rewarded on test scores. The End. "

How do asians have a better chance to get in? They don't have aa on their side...

I also agree that test scores cannot be the only measure of intellectual merit. Duh. That's why people with high test scores and high GPAs do get rejected. I just can't understand why "merit should be rewarded" on skin color?

By Burberry (Burberry) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:15 pm: Edit

according to tenisghs, it "adds more" to the campus. i don't understand how a different skin color contributes more to a campus than a person who possess special talents/skills/merit regardless of skin color. it just so happens that blacks don't comprise a large proportion of that yet asians/whites do, and accepting a person with black skin is somehow contributing more to the campus. and hey, i have a third eye! doesn't that mean i have even more to "contribute" than a person with black skin? unless of course he/she also possessed a third eye...

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:17 pm: Edit

From Tim -
Even for Asians, 1600 SAT is exceptional. In fact, the Asian average for 2002 was 1070 compared to the White average of 1060.(1)

Tim

(1) College Board's Report on College Bound Seniors, Table 7

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2002/pdf/CBS2002Report.pdf
Tim
===============================================
Is it me or that is the first time you actually posted accurate, unbiased information? Good job!! And yes, that is true. Unfortunately did you see the average for blacks, hispanics, and native americans? That is why AA is implemented. The standardized tests scores are not EQUAL among the races.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Tim has posted more accurate information and data then you. Actually, I don't remember you posting any data at all.


Standardized test scores are not equal among the races, therefore we should have separate admissions processes for the races.

Quite a leap of logic there, buddy.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Dear x,
If you want to go back to the sports comparison. Yes you're right. There are very few asians in the sports arena. Should pro-level sports reflect te nation's population? I don't think so. Take the best people. And in admissions, take the most qualified candidates regardless of skin color.
================================================
Yes, but when you compare the sports arena to colleges, more people apply to college than sports. Athletic ability is a talent. Many people on this board, including myself, don't have the talent to play for the NCAA or NHL or NBA. Most people in this country go STRAIGHT to college, not the pros. Therefore, it's imperative to make diversity an issue on college campuses than sports. Less than 5% of the American public actually goes PRO. Pro Sports, unfortunately, are a business, and managers and owners hire the best players for profit-making and revenue. No one has ever told me that college only accepts the best to make profits and revunes. College accepts the brightest, well-rounded students into their schools to create a diverse, intellectual enviroment. Standardized test scores alone do not tell colleges a candidate's true personal character or talents.

By hi on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:30 pm: Edit

tenisghs,
you have terrible logic. anyone arguing with tenisghs should just stop arguing now. you will only become stupider.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:31 pm: Edit

To no one -

Standardized test scores are not equal among the races, therefore we should have separate admissions processes for the races.

Quite a leap of logic there, buddy.
================================================
I find it racist if colleges actually believe that standardized tests are the sole factor to determine if a person is qualified or not. When you look at the SAT scores site, many of the reasons why the test scores for blacks, native Americans, and hispanics all have to do with socioeconomic factors. Most asians attend schools with a predominately white group, where native americans, hispanics, and blacks tend to attend racially segregated schools that are not for all in the best conditions. If you think you're lying, why don't you go to your nearby inner-city public school.

This is not a color-blind society. It's obvious that education in this country is not equal among all races and socioeconomic groups.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:38 pm: Edit

X -

I also agree that test scores cannot be the only measure of intellectual merit. Duh. That's why people with high test scores and high GPAs do get rejected. I just can't understand why "merit should be rewarded" on skin color?
================================================
Because education in this country is not equal? Since I live in Detroit, which is 84% black, I see the disparities the school system has: lack of teachers, inadequate supplies, no motivation or interest in academics, etc. These large school districts do testing, testing, testing, to the point many student tune out and just refuse to take these tests. It doesn't help them academically, and they are sick and tired of state tests.

Some of these students want to go to schools like Yale, Harvard, UMich, etc. but that dream opportunity fades extremely when they face the harsh realities. I was lucky to receive a good education in a predominately white school, and my hard work paid off when I was accepted to University of Michigan.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:40 pm: Edit

SES does not account for the lower scores of blacks.

White kids with near poverty level household income ($20K/year) are scoring higher on the SAT then black kids with upper middle class household income ($70K/year).

Don't tell me these black kids don't have more resources available to them then the white kids.


I have to agree with you, hi. Tenishgs reminds me of the Black Knight.

---Victory is mine! We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mercy...

Tenisghs: No, you haven't won. Come on, have at you!

--Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.

Tenishs: Yes, I have. Tis just a flesh wound.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:51 pm: Edit

For me, I truly feel a diverse campus is essential. College (undergraduate) is not about just receiving an education. College is about learning about one's self and making new friends (across the color line.) Some people may only see college as for the education. That's fine too. I see college in a social sense too. There are whites and asians that may apply to a school that grew up around BLACK/HISPANIC people. They have a different perspective on friendships, life, etc. When they attend college, and see that college life doesn't have blacks/hispanics, it hurts them personally. College life is about forming friendships as well as doing your schoolwork. I hear from white people that they enjoyed their 4 years of college life better than their high school years. Some may new friends across different races, etc. I grew up around black and white people, and I sure as hell want my experience to be the same in college.

By x on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

Tenisghs-

Lack of teachers, incompetent teachers, inadequate supplies plague most public schools in the country.

"No motivation and interest"- now whose fault is that? Does living in a richer area mean you'll be more motivated to work hard and learn? Of course not.

Testing in CA is overdone, but I don't think taking standardized tests for one week each year has destroyed my love of learning (ok, that sounds a bit dramatic, but you get the point)...

Tenisghs- again for the umpteenth time, no one disagrees with "Standardized test scores alone do not tell colleges a candidate's true personal character or talents. "
Yeah, so can we please drop that argument.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 08:59 pm: Edit

To no one -

SES does not account for the lower scores of blacks.

White kids with near poverty level household income ($20K/year) are scoring higher on the SAT then black kids with upper middle class household income ($70K/year).

Don't tell me these black kids don't have more resources available to them then the white kids.
============================================
Since you had to result to foolishness, I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. It's sad that Asians and whites like you feel this way. I wonder how you will feel post-undergraduate towards hispanics and blacks in the work world. If it's the same hateful mentality, may God rest your soul. I don't have to deal with people like you in real-life. All I can do is laugh and be on my way. I know what I can do.

By AA Sucks on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:04 pm: Edit

"Oh, because MANY Chinese students have 1600 SATs (almost normal) to begin with in the application pool, it's discrimintion if the colleges try to weed out some of the 1600s for well-rounded students? Idiot. "

And what is well-roundedness? Being black? LOL. Face it, AA is reverse discrimination against Asians. I rest my case, IDIOT!

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:05 pm: Edit

What, you don't believe me?

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

X -
Testing in CA is overdone, but I don't think taking standardized tests for one week each year has destroyed my love of learning (ok, that sounds a bit dramatic, but you get the point)... ===============================================
But you do realize that there are families who spend MEGABUCKS on SAT/ACT prep classes so that their children can boost their scores? Some of these programs like Kaplan, Princeton Review, or private tutoring cost well over $300. You think lower-income families will spend that kind of money??? The SAT does not test what you learn in school. Granted some state exams do but they are not the SAT/ACT. For the Verbal section, a person with good memorization skills can easily memorize the entire dictionary and ace the exam. For the Math section, a person who can work in a fastpace enviroment can do all the problems before time runs out. I have seen students with 4.0s and 3.8s who take the SAT and score in the 1000s-1100s. They thought it was the end of the world. They shouldn't have to suffer such punishment all because the SAT doesn't measure what they learn in school. Plus, if you learn how to "take the SAT" it increases your chances of doing well. The ACT is another option but the last two sections, especially science, is a weed-out process for those who can't stay awake or focus any longer.

By tenisghs on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:13 pm: Edit

AA sucks -
"Oh, because MANY Chinese students have 1600 SATs (almost normal) to begin with in the application pool, it's discrimintion if the colleges try to weed out some of the 1600s for well-rounded students? Idiot. "

And what is well-roundedness? Being black? LOL. Face it, AA is reverse discrimination against Asians. I rest my case, IDIOT!
================================================
And if a person has a 1600, that college should automatically accept them because of their test scores? In your dream world, AA sucks. There are more factors to judge and analyze than their test scores. For some colleges, sadly say, it doesn't weigh as much. If anything, the things that weigh the most are your high school transcript, difficulty of courses, and what school you attend.

By x on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:18 pm: Edit

If you can't stay awake or focus for three hours, something is not quite right.

Debating the SAT is a little old, but here goes (again)...

Of course, I know there are people who spend lots of money on prep courses, but basically most ppl know if you spend $15 on a book to study with, you can do just as well. Maybe, unaffordable for some, but they definitely have them at local libraries.
Even memorizing the entire dictionary won't guarantee a perfect verbal. You can't really teach reading comprehension. I don't think finishing math problems dealing with material in alg 1 and geometry in the allotted time is a problem.

By finalword on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Very simply, to make up for 400 years of racism against blacks by instituting racist policies against whites is counterproductive to the peaceful coexistence we seek as a nation.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

How surprising tenisghs can't back up his statements. He just insults you and tries to play the race card.

How is me saying poverty level whites are scoring higher then upper middle class blacks hateful? It's the truth. Social economic status can not account for the lower performance on the SAT. The question you have ask yourself now is, why are they scoring lower?

It's cultural. It's this culture of victimization.

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Is the answer to this problem Affirmative Action?

Or does affirmative action perpetuate the culture of victimization?

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

no one, to be fair, wasn't the scattergram you had for the $20k/year whites vs. the $70K/year blacks only applicable to one state (North Carolina?)? I can't remember where it was so I can't check.

"College is about learning about one's self and making new friends (across the color line.)"

I just find something inherently wrong with the idea of making friends with different races as inherently good. It's good to have friends, but based on the individual qualities of each person, disregarding race.

If the purpose of going to college is that exposure to people of different races (as a group) is somehow inherently better than exposure to people of the same race, it just brings up ridiculous notions of a racial circus sideshow to me.

"Step right up boys and girls we've got your minorities here at Ivy League School! That's right, see The Diversity Show! Wonder at the mysterious Negro! Hear the strange Spanish speech of the exotic Mexican! Perhaps the Native American, if you befriend him, will let you see the secret ceremonies of his Pow-Wow! They take the same classes as you! They live in the same dorms as you! Is it possible that with just a little help they can lead normal lives? Yes, see the Minorities and you will leave a sadder and a wiser man!"

Individuals are diverse in the way that matters. Groups are not.

Tim

By Tim (Tim) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:50 pm: Edit

"a person with good memorization skills can easily memorize the entire dictionary and ace the exam. For the Math section, a person who can work in a fastpace enviroment"

Do you claim that memorization skills and the ability to solve problems quickly do not correlate meaningfully (not perfectly, but enough to be considered) with whatever you claim as "intelligence." (Intelligence is not defined at all, but in general most people's ideas of who is intelligent and who is not will correlate with SAT scores, GPA, IQ, etc.)

Tim

By no one on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 09:51 pm: Edit

What's so special about north carolina? Money is money, no matter what state you're in.

Anyway, Both pro-AA and anti-AA people already know about the $20K vs $70K issue. It's a well accepted fact.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:z9UL15zKE2AC:www.bamn.com/doc/2001/0111-sat-factsheet.htm+bamn+sat+racist&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=lgtech-kb

By Admin (Admin) on Sunday, January 05, 2003 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Thread locked -Admin


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page