What else is new?
Probably you should also admit to misreading my post and then arrogantly accusing me of posting something that “makes no fucking sense” when the problem was in your head all along. Pooh on you indeed.
You make it sound like my position is some radical fringe position. This characterization by you and FMI just undercuts your credibility. When FMI compares me to birthers it just makes you guys look fucking silly.
Its going to take more than conjecture and some statements by the very admissions committees that are being accused of discrimination to convince me. If you can point to statements by the admissions committees as evidence that discrimination doesn’t exist then I think I can point to statements by college admissions consultants who say that Asians are discriminated against because they are (to some extent) pooled with other Asian applicants.
I disagree. I think that if we went race blind, we would see the 3 to 1 disparity start to approach parity.
Prove? As in I can take it to court and get a verdict purely based on the strength of that fact, then of course you are right but there is apparently enough there to launch a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION (or is thye federal government a bunch of birther like crackpots too?). I believe that there is sufficient proof that you don’t have to be a crackpot to believe that there is discrimination (as do most of the folks who have written articles on the subject).
I believe they are. I have had every college admissions consultant I talk to tell me that they are and every article I have read in the news media has indicated that there is something fishy. If we could correct for geography and extracurriculars, the disparity would not be three to one but it would still be significant.
And the guy who explained this to me told me that there was still significant harder for asians to get admitted to some schools versus equally qualified white candidates because these schools aren’t looking for “well rounded students” they are trying to build a “well rounded student body” and for a lot of admissions committees that means controlling the Asian population.
If your argument comes down to ignoring my cites, waving away facts and calling me a liar, your argument might not be as strong as you think. I know you truly believe that there isn’t discrimination but, sorry if I don’t take your word for it that there is no discrimination.
If you don’t believe me then just fucking call them, you don’t have to take my word for it, call one of these college admissions consultants and ask them.
Which study are you talking about again.
WTF!?!?!
What do you think I was talking about here in post 58?
“We are talking about who those students will be and you are saying that the Harvard educational experience will suffer because there are too many Asian kids because noone has identified anything other than race that distinguishes the average 2400 SAT white applicant from the average 2400 Asian applicant.”
Or here in post 83?
“I am a bit more concerned with the plight of kid who is going to attend NYU instead of Cornell because Cornell feels it has too many Asians.”
Or here in post 102?
“Do I think there is malicious racism in top colleges to exclude Asians. Of course not. But, I do think that Asians are subject to a higher admissions standard because these schools feel like they already have too many Asians.”
"Are you fucking kidding me? Is this upside down day? I don’t have a problem with affirmative action but there is there any doubt that there is an admissions preference for underrepresented minorities. Simply put, not enough blacks and hispanics (for whatever reason) so we lower the bar for them. Too many Asians (for whatever reason) so we raise the bar. Y’all are just pretending that its something more than trying to maintain some sort of racial balance and implying that “Asians are REALLLY nerdy and thats probably what keeps out the Asians nerds versus the smooth charismatic white dudes that get high SAT and GPAs. Puhlease.”
“I don’t see why people have such a problem admitting that Asians are being subjected to a higher standard because schools feel there are too many Asians. Its like we are afraid of hurting the feeling of white kids at these schools if we let them know that they were subject to a lower standard than their Asian classmates. Well either level the playing field or make white kids live with the same issues that black and hispanic kids have to deal with because everyone “KNOWS” that the black and hispanic kids aren’t as smart as the white kids.”
“And in this case, too many of one type of student means too many Asians. I can accept that schools don’t want to have too many Asians and therefore discriminate against them, I don’t like it but I can accept it. I can’t accept being asked for and providing cites that discrimination exists and when I ask for cites getting nothing but stereotypes, hypotheticals and unfounded theories.”
“Well, I don’t know about law enforcement but I know that at law schools there is also discrimination against Asians in the admission process because there are too many Asians there too. But its good to know that you are keeping up on your stereotypes.”
or post 115
“OK so the upshot of that is a desire to keep a lid on teh Asian population. For whatever virtuous reason they may have, ultimately they are keeping a lid on teh Asian population because they think there are too many Asians. Just say it, they don’t want that many Asians in their student body and they discrimiante against Asians in order to achieve that purpose.”
“What bothers me is that rather than simply admit that they don’t want too many Asians you are saying that they are using Asian stereotypes to exclude Asians based on that stereotype. That borders on racist.”
or Post 176
“My position is, top schools have experienced a tidal wave of highly qualified Asian applicants and it has gotten to the point (its been this way for a while now) they don’t want “too many” Asians so they effectively impose higher admissions standards on Asian applicants than they would on white applicants. I don’t think that there is significant evidence that Asians are social retards compared to their white counterparts, certainly not enough to explain away the sort of disparities we see. I think it is simply discriminating against Asians based on race, not because they are malicious racists or even because they are stereotyping Asians but simply because they feel they have too many Asians.”
I know I throw up a wall of text trying to respond to everything (but whenever I leave stuff out people seem to think I’m evading them) but I don’t know how I could be any clearer. Did you think that I was trying to say that admissions committees are engaged in some sort of conspiracy (as FMI likes to characterize my argument)?
Or is your point that this sort of thing isn’t discrimination?
No you haven’t because you can’t. If a college consultant can do in 5 minutes what you have not been able to do in several pages perhaps the case you make isn’t all that clear.
When have you laid things out as clearly as I laid out the geographic issue that the college consultant explained to me? If you are “in the business” you certainly have fuzzy thinking in the area.
I’m sorry, did I make your pussy hurt? Don’t you know that GD has rules for a reason. You had been making insulting insinuations and remarks for several pages before I flat out asked you if you were calling me a liar.
Don’t you realize that people don’t have to be liars to disagree with you and how fucking stupid do you have to be to complain about being called out on breaking the rules? I have avoided insulting you because I don’t recall ever seeing you being an ass or shitting on people but after FMI started being an ass, you started drifting in that direction, he confirmed your bias and you acted accordingly.
I’m sorry if you have trouble understanding that racial quotas (no matter how soft they are) are a form of discrimination.
I mean we do agree on that right? That there is something of a quota system in place, they effectively pool Asians, right? Or are you going to backtrack away from that too?
Rather than pretend I am saying that the admissions committees are thinking to themselves “lets keep out the chinks” or that I think that scores and GPA are the only things that should be considered, why not try and address what I am saying.
You bitch and fucking moan about my not understanding your subtle arguments when you seem to simplify mine with no problem whatsoever.
I mean seriously, distilling my argument down to “aww, he’s just playing the race card is fucking retarded.”
Now I realize that FixMyIgnorance that likened this complaint about discrimination to playing the race card but I figured I’d give you a chance to start distancing yourself form some of the stupider shit he said because you certainly didn’t do it in the GD thread.
Why don’t you just go back to telling us your SAT and LSAT scores. It is the best argument you have for the notion that they don’t actually measure anything.
This is why you’re a blithering moron.
You. Do. Not. Get. It.
And you resist every attempt made to educate you on this subject. You ignore real-life cases where your beliefs are not supported/upheld in practice. You ignore the words of admissions officers and act like they’re all “in on it.” You don’t understand the basic statistical problems involved in trying to analyze a complex decision-making model with only a couple of variables. You keep repeating the same points even after they’ve been torn apart and exposed as severely flawed.
You’re hopelessly retarded. “Congenitally stupid” is right on the money, here.
It’s not that your opinion is as stupid as the birthers, it’s that you live in the same bubble of ignorance, immune to any logic and counter evidence.
You do realize a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION means very little. Planned parenthood is under federal investigation. So are facebook, google and a number of other companies. Call when there is action taken by the government on the issue.
I suppose you don’t have to be, but you are; and you are wrong.
Gosh, you are stupid. The fact that you post all of that just proves you are just painfully stupid.
First, you have been fairly explicit in alleging such a thing. Second, even if you hadn’t, seeing that the disparities you suggest exist would have to be a coordinated, intentional process, it’s implied that there must be some sort a conspiracy. The fact that you can think a year to year systemic program to limit Asians at nearly every elite university would be anything but a conspiracy makes me question if you just don’t understand what a conspiracy is. I linked to the definition for you. How is what you are suggesting not a conspiracy?
You remind me of some of the Black people I have met who think liquor stores and take-out places are put in low-income communities to kill Black people. Claims like this have a veneer of truth, just as yours does. “They” have done things to try to intentionally hurt Black people, and there are a lot of really shitty stores in the ghetto. The problem is going from a factual claim like, “there are lots of destructive enterprises in low-income communities”, to, “they are there because TPTB want to kill Black people”. And when you explain to them market forces and zoning laws, etc, they just keep repeating their claim. This is why I cannot get behind what you are saying. It’s clear that college admissions processes have idiosyncrasies that may in fact harm Asian people, just as the prevalence of liquor stores and take-out may harm Black people, but it doesn’t mean it’s some intentional plot, or that race was a substantial factor in either case.
Because since we do not agree with you conclusions, you ignored us. Almost everything you said here was said in the previous thread. Maybe it wasn’t all in one post as we were responding to asinine claim after asinine claim from you rather than trying to educate you on basic stuff in a point by point manner.
That’s hilarious given you are the one that ran to a mod the first chance you got. You know that was a bitch move. Especially since you expect everyone else to be cool with you calling them racists, but when you get called out on your lie (and you did lie) you whine like your diaper is wet.
I am complaining because you did far worse, yet you when the vitriol is directed at you, you snitch like a coward. You are not “fucking stupid” for disagreeing, you are stupid because you cannot understand basic analogies and explanations. I know people (smart people) in real life who hold your position, they just don’t pretend the evidence says something it doesn’t, work backwards from a conclusion they have no intention of changing, or ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit their narrative.
There is no proof of racial quotas. Why don’t you get this? First, for that to be the case, you would have dozens of people engaged in a clearly illegal practice which would open their employer to significant liability. Why would any fairly low-paid admission person agree to do this? It’s doesn’t even pass the smell test.
I think you are playing the “dumbfuck who cannot understand basic stuff” card. Seriously, I don’t care that you are Asian, and I doubt your opinion is based solely on being Asian. I don’t think you are playing the race card, I just think you may be too close to the issue to see that you argument has little merit. You just don’t get it. I really don’t know what else to say. I have literally wasted hours reading your nonsense and responding, because on some level, I would like to see you understand. But it’s pretty clear to me you have neither the capacity, nor the inclination to do so.
And FYI, I have never told you any of my scores, and I have never taken a real LSAT as I have had no reason to. The only time I mentioned scores at all was because you assumed nobody could relate to doing well on the SAT.
Nope. That shit still don’t make sense. The problem is still in YOUR head.
But as this isn’t your Pitting, I won’t waste anybody else’s time and simply quote General MacAuliffe:
Nuts!
It’s pretty much the same sort of willful ignorance.
Obama Birthers ignore all piles of contradictory evidence (especially if it comes from the President or his administration), hold onto their misguided beliefs no matter what, and will dig their heels into any piece of weak evidence that supports them no matter how tenuous it is or how badly they may be misunderstanding that evidence. They believe everyone else is “in on it” and that it’s therefore a conspiracy.
Much like you, you ignore all evidence that weakens your position, especially if it’s coming from admissions officers. You hold onto your belief of anti-Asian discrimination no matter what, and you will hook into any piece of weak-ass evidence you can get your hands on, even if you abuse basic statistics and misunderstand things horribly (3-to-1 disparity, AI, etc). You assume all the admissions officers are “in on it” and are just keeping quiet/hiding behind “soft criteria.”
So tell me again why this comparison is so flawed, again? Don’t, actually, because you’re just going to make more bullshit excuses anyway.
Investigations don’t mean anything will come from them. Obama went through the trouble of having exceptions pulled so he could have all his birth certification information released to the public. Do you think people were investigating him because there was merit to the case or because something fishy was going on? No. It’s because people are dumbasses and the administration wanted to put a cap on the misinformation/ignorance being spread about the notion because it was getting ridiculous.
Statistical issues are complex matters and ripe targets for media sensationalism due to oversimplification and naively arrived-at conclusions. It doesn’t mean there’s a smoking gun. All sorts of investigations get opened up all the time.
Again, this kind of language is misleading. Again, word choice matters. Again, I have to explain this shit to you.
Yes, colleges want diversity. No, colleges don’t necessarily want any one given race to be unfairly overrepresented. They try to strike a balance after taking into account all the variables they can. But the desire to achieve a balanced, diversified student body is NOT the same as saying “They want to put a lid on the Asian population and discriminate against them/hold them to higher standards.”
You don’t seem to understand the difference. It’s a really, really obvious difference here and your two-bit, molasses-filled, heavily-rusted, retardedly worthless sponge of a brain is somehow unable to make the connection.
Yes. Why do you act like this is so shocking? Are you that ignorant that you don’t understand the definition of a conspiracy? You constantly say crap like this:
You think college admissions officers are lying and “pretending.” When I give you primary source material (such as the MIT adcom’s blog, or references to the Harvard admissions officer, etc), you outright say you don’t trust them. You’re assuming that all these top schools are full of untrustworthy admissions officers who are somehow trying to keep quiet about how they supposedly discriminate against Asians. How is what you are arguing here NOT a conspiracy?
Playing the race card = making a baseless accusation that you’ve been impinged upon in some way strictly because of your race. This is what Jian Li did. He got rejected from a bunch of top schools and whined that it was because he was Asian.
Lol, then why is it so hard to answer my question?
Do you not understand that there is a difference between “high performers” and “people from traditionally high-achieving groups”?
It’s a very simple yes or no question. Why do you continue to ignore it?
The sky isn’t going to fall if you admit that there is in fact a difference.
Lol, I guess you are the type who would rather eat his own shoe than admit he’s wrong.
Refresh my memory, here – what exactly are you arguing?
We are arguing over the reasonable interpretation of a point which I made, which was this:
I realize that you may disagree with the underlying claim I am making, but the dispute is not over whether the claim itself is correct. The dispute is over whether the claim makes any sense, which it clearly does. Apparently according to Antibob, my statement referred to high-performing individuals, not people from high-achieving groups. Clearly he is wrong.
BS. This is clearly GD territory, so, again, I’m not getting into it here, you pusillanimous, mouth-breathing moron. That’s the whole fucking point to that other thread.
Again: Nuts!
To discuss whether or not you are an arrogant liar? Lol, nice rationalization.
Yet again my question:
Do you not understand that there is a difference between “high performers” and “people from traditionally high-achieving groups”?
And to be perfectly fair, I will concede in advance that the dispute is over whether or not antibob misinterpreted my statement. Of course, I also assert that his response was both arrogant and dishonest.
There’s no evidence that the bar is set higher for Asians, if that’s what you’re getting at.
You also have to define exactly what you mean by “high performance.” If you mean things like SAT scores and grades, you must also factor into account that these are not the only components that matter in admissions.
But again it’s not like Asians are held to a higher standard. If Asians have a tougher time getting into college, it’s because homogenous trends are being selected against for the sake of diversity. This is a vital point that morons like Damuri keep glossing over. It’s not the same as anti-Asian discrimination. What’s happening is that colleges are trying to diversify across a broad spectrum of applicant types from all walks of life. This may result in some people having in tougher than others based on circumstance, but it’s not the same as singling out any one group and trying to keep a lid on their attendance.
For instance, if you’re an Asian from California trying to get into the Ivies, it’s going to be harder than if you’re trying to apply from, say, North Dakota. This is because admissions are split by region, and it’s going to be easier to get in if your competition isn’t as fierce. There’s a lot of fierce competition in California. This isn’t the same as holding a given race to a higher standard.
Of course, the downside is that applying from a state like North Dakota is, well… it’s North Dakota. Living there means your parents must typically work there, and finances may be totally different between ND and CA. This changes your ability to leverage resources. School districts may be totally different, school quality may be totally different, EC opportunities may not exist at the same level, etc.
The bar is set higher if you’re in an environment where you have more advantages. For instance, you might look at NYC private prep-school kids getting admitted to Ivies in droves, but have you looked at their applications? They’ve got ridiculous scores, lots of EC involvement, fantastic grades, rigorous classes, money, etc. This is all because they’re in a top-echelon environment where the sky’s the limit. Teachers are great, opportunities are everywhere, tutoring is ubiquitous, funding is readily available, etc. Therefore, weaknesses in your application are more easily attributable to things like lack of effort, whereas we wouldn’t hold it against a North Dakotan applicant if he isn’t necessarily involved in the same types of activities. Again, this is the point of holistic admissions.
This is why it doesn’t make any goddamned sense to cry over anti-Asian discrimination when there are so many variables involved that you simply do not have access to. I can’t stress this enough. Dumbasses like Damuri, however, don’t seem to get it.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is correct. It does not change the fact that antibob is an arrogant liar. Because instead of responding to the assertion which I actually made, he responded to the point he imagined I made.
Here’s a little reading comprehension problem for you.
First, here’s what I said before:
antibob stated this:
My question is this:
Is my statement closer to (1) the claim that universities discriminate against Asians and Jews; or (2) the claim that universities discriminate against high performers.
Simple question, just choose (1) or (2) and explain your reasoning.
While I think it’s obvious that your statement can be interpreted to refer to traditionally high-performing groups like Asians or Jews given the context of the surrounding post, I think it’s best to just SAY that outright and clear up the ambiguity.
In other words, while you could have been clearer, I still think it was pretty obvious what you meant and antibob likely just wanted to point out the distinction. In this sort of debate, wording matters a lot (notice how Damuri has been abusing his words/definitions all throughout the debate), and so it’s important to be very clear with what you mean by “traditional high-performance” and what kind of “groups” you refer to.
If someone misinterprets you, just rephrase things another way with more detail. Unless of course you’re a guy like Damuri, this won’t work.
Are you saying that a reasonable person, reading carefully, could interpret my statement to be closer to (2)?
And why not just answer my question? It’s simple enough.
Is my statement closer to (1) the claim that universities discriminate against Asians and Jews; or (2) the claim that universities discriminate against high performers.
Simple question, just choose (1) or (2) and explain your reasoning.
If somebody is unsure what I mean, they are free to ask nicely for clarification.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, it doesn’t change the fact that antibob is an arrogant liar.
- But, also, who cares?