So what of those things justifies penalizing Asians and advantaging Hispanics?
Sotomayor famously notes that she would not be on the Supreme Court but for Affirmative action. If Asians have all these societally imbued benefits that Hispanics don’t get, then where are the Asians on the Supreme Court?
“she says. “You can’t be a minority in this society without having someone express disapproval about affirmative action.””
Its like people think there isn’t any discrimination against Asians.
Yea and those immediate results are not leading to long lasting results. Like I said, I agree with affirmative action but that doesn’t mean that I agree with it whatever form it takes. I think we could spend a little less political capital on shoehorning second tier black students into first tier schools and spend more political capital improving their environment earlier in life.
If you really think that 450 points on the SATs do not represent a demonstrable difference in academic ability then I don’t know what to say. The difference between getting a 600 on the math section and a 750 is the difference between an engineering major and a history major.
And what environmental advantages do Asian immigrants have over Hispanic immigrants?
Pretty much ALL non-white immigrants came in after the 1960’s before the 1950’s we had things like the Chinese exclusion act to keep Asians out.
A branch of my family is American Indian by marriage and I am aware of the fuzzy line between southwestern American Indian and Mexican. And just as I don’t think we should extend race based affirmative action (or nowhere near as much as we do) to Black students from Ethiopia or Jamaica we don’t need to extend race based affirmative action to Hispanics just because they share a skin color with American Indians.
And Asian students aren’t? We have the Mayor of NYC attempting to change the way we admit students to NYC’s magnet schools because there aren’t enough minorities (even though its majority Asians+Jews), apparently we’re too white for him.
At the same time, Ivy league schools seem to be selecting away from Asian students for the benefits of mostly white students. Apparently we aren’t white enough for them.
And Asians didn’t? Apparently Asians not only don’t need any remediation for discrimination, we can remedy discrimination against others at the expense of Asians.
There are indeed long-lasting results – there are way, way more black people with college degrees than in the past. I think this is a big positive good. That doesn’t mean affirmative action is perfect, but that’s at least one positive good from it.
Do you think there is a significant differences in the abilities of people with around 125 IQs like Richard Feynman (126) and James Watson (124) and a person with a 200+ IQ like Terrance Tao? Tao supposedly has an IQ around 220. That is more than 6 standard deviations above a guy like Feynman. Do you think such a measured testing difference demonstrates any reliable difference in abilities?
And most of those things were ended and repudiated for most races save most under-represented minorities. There just generally isn’t the level overt racism against Asians as there is against Hispanics.
The Hispanic immigrants were not brought over on slave ships. They are largely economic immigrants like most of the Asian immigrants in this country. And I have said that I believe in some form of affirmative action for the descendants of slaves, even a quota system but as you note, there are some black immigrant groups that are getting the “black” affirmative action bonus.
So people like Asians better because we have lighter skin than blacks or Hispanics? Really?
And why the heck do you think it is fair that we give others an advantage because Asian parents are willing to sacrifice more for their children’s education?
I hear this from a lot of white suburban parents that want to handicap Asians because they all have tiger moms or something like that.
And what flaw do Asians have that we should apply a lower bar to admission to highly selective schools for whites? How do you justify the advantage that5 whites have over Asians in the admissions process?
The above is bullshit. The move to de-emphasize testing might have always been there but at least in the case of magnet schools in NYC (and many other places) many white folks didn’t jump on the bandwagon until THEIR kids started to get crowded out by Asian students. The move to de-emphasize testing hasn’t really caught on with white folks at the college level yet because it doesn’t really negatively affect their kids at that level (or at least they don’t think so).
Who said it was primarily motivated by anti-Asian sentiment (and to be totally honest, it sounds like you know fuck all about how much anti-Asian sentiment exists in suburban white America). It is creeping in because white kids are falling behind and there seems to be a reflexive reaction to that.
I don’t think that the admissions committee at UC Berkeley EVER had a conscious anti-Asian bias, however, when they eliminated racial identifiers in the admissions process, white admissions dropped and Asian admissions rose. I suspect that the admissions committee itself was at least a little surprised that they were selecting against Asians and in favor of whites, I’m sure they didn’t mean to.
As an Asian we have a unique (well, perhaps its also shared by other model minorities like Jews) perspective on discrimination in America. We don’t have the same blind spots that whites and blacks have when it comes to racism in America and I do not begrudge affirmative action for blacks. But when I hear white people say that tests are not particularly meaningful, what I hear are white people that are concerned that their kids are getting out-tested by Asian kids and they want to move the goalposts to wherever their kids excel compared to Asian kids at that time. When Asians adapt and move their kids towards the new goalposts, they will try to move the goalposts again to someplace where there are a lot of white kids and not as many Asian kids.
The fact of the matter is that there I no perfect objective criteria but they are generally better than the imperfect subjective criteria which have long been used to exclude minorities, sometimes not even consciously.
And which of your subjective measures are better predictors of college success? Recommendations? Essays? What is a better predictor of college success that we should deemphasize these tests to the extent that we can ignore a 450 point or even a 50 point difference in test scores? What is this magical subjective criteria that justifies admitting white students to top tier colleges at several times the rate of their Asian peers with the same test scores, grades and level of extracurricular activities?
Who is arguing for solely objective criteria (well I guess the folks in NYC who are against DeBlasio’s injection of subjectivity into the SHSAT do)? So subjectivity was used for discriminatory purposes in the past but they’ve fixed it now and its not used to discriminate any more. Is that the argument?
Can we bring back literacy tests in the south if we promise not to use it discriminatorily? how do you explain the fact that when race identifiers were removed from application at UC Berkeley, Asian admissions rose while white admissions fell? Just coincidence?
I don’t believe objective criteria are all that matter. But I think you have to justify any subjective criteria you choose to use.
Wait, I thought the move was to de-emphasize test scores even more than we do now. It sounds like what you are saying is that Asians are somehow specialized at test taking. They are one trick ponies that can get good test scores but do not have enough of the other things that colleges look for. So what are these fucking things? Are Asian students insufficiently musical, artistic, athletic, involved in their community? What? It seems like the thing they lack most is European heritage. Otherwise how do you explain what happened at Berkeley (and frankly at all the UC schools) after admissions became race blind?
What organization or company plays a similar role in our society? Are these organizations tax exempt?
I grew up in a black neighborhood and I agree that it makes a difference when all the doctors were white and all the janitors were black. So I can see why we need more black primary care physicians. I don’t see why we need to make sure those black doctors are Harvard grads.
You are picking out notable outliers. Accomplished scientists that once did relatively poorly on an IQ test. Do you think that Feyman’s IQ was of theoretical phusicists?
And yes I think there is a significant difference between someone with a 125 IQ and someone with a 220 IQ.
If there were as many Asians as there are Hispanics, things might be different.
So that’s an argument about how AA is done, but since AA has started, the ratio of black Americans who have obtained college degrees has gone way, way up.
Because there are a ton of people out there who won’t respect a black doctor who graduates from Podunk State U. A white person who graduates from the same school is fine, because white doctors are a known quantity. But the black doctor is going to be perceived as inferior unless they have something that separates them from the pack.
A black doctor from Podunk U. can be a great doctor–better than a black doctor from Harvard U. But who is more likely to be appointed medical director? Under-served communities don’t just benefit from having practitioners who look like them. They also benefit when those in charge are from the community.
Graduation rates are heavily influenced by things like support systems for first generation college students. For people without family or friends to rely on for guidance, things like navigating course registration, tracking credits, seeking tutoring, attending office hours, etc. are not as intuitive as one may think. These things are correctable.
Of course, the main reason why poor kids drop out is that they run out of money or run up against family commitments.
The circumstances are typically very, very different.
So? Do you think Nigerian immigrants are immune to anti-Black prejudice?
Broadly speaking yes. SE Asians are often treated better because they are not Black, but skin color also matters a lot.
See, your framing the issue this way is begging the question. Hurting Asians isn’t the goal, and it’s barely a byproduct. Holistic evaluation is good on it’s own merits, and is argued for without any regard for how it specifically affects Asian people. I get that that is your thing, but it’s largely not the point. Valuing diversity, and recognizing the poor predictive value of tests is not some anti-Asian plot regardless of how you want to spin in.
Once again, you are just arguing Whites have a specific advantage because they get in with lower test scores. The problem is that test scores are not the only valuable metric. Where you are confused is thinking Asians must have higher test scores to get into a given university because of a specific bar set up prevent over-representation, when the reality is that Asians who are accepted typically have higher score due to the fact that the Asian population that applies has higher scores. For example, if every Asian with a SAT over 2150 decided to boycott Harvard, Harvard would still accept plenty of Asian people below that cutoff. They don’t have some rule that Asians must be x% better than Whites or Blacks. Such a thing sometimes happens with students, at least as far as test scores are concerned, because of group averages.
Yes, it’s probably demonstrably true that Harvard, et al, don’t want 100% Asian people. But they also don’t want 100% White people, or 100% New Yorkers, or 100% whatever.
Do you not see a contradiction here? Once again, you are radically overstating your case, and talking about things you don’t seem to know about.
Even if I agreed with the above, it doesn’t really prove your point at all about the motivations of most people who approve of affirmative action type programs and a de-emphasis on testing. Hell, teacher’s unions and other educational professionals are some of the largest groups who want to de-emphasisze and minimize testing in every facet of the educational process. You think pointing to some allegedly bigoted White people in NYC is indicative of a larger issue? You are talking about 8 or so high schools in one city. That is not enough evidence to back up your claims.
I am pretty sure they knew such a thing might happen. They are professionals and the data was fairly clear.
You can HEAR whatever you want. If you reflexively assume every White person who CORRECTLY identifies an issue is a racist, then the issue is with you. Maybe that is YOUR blind spot.
I am sure that happens, but the issue at hand has almost nothing to do with such things.
Why are “objective” criteria better? Again, given that schools essentially want to create a microcosm of society with a specific focus on education, why are scores the best way to achieve that goal?
They don’t have to be better predictors of college success. You are conflating two issues here: whether test scores tell us what they think they tell us, and how a college can best create a class that reflects the values they have. De-emphasizing test scores is a good idea in light of the former; tests don’t tell us or measure what they claim they do. That’s WHY they are not objective measurements in actuality. The consideration of more subjective criteria is helpful because those things help a university create a class they want to create (eg. one with geographic diversity, diversity of interests and experiences, diversity of majors, etc.).
If universities were only interested in predicting success, they wouldn’t need to even bother with admissions at all. Let anyone take lower courses online or on campus, then just take the top x number of students. Obviously the admissions process is not solely an exercise in predicting future success, and that is a good thing.
How about the fact that they don’t want near identical copies of the same person regardless of their race. For example, do you think Harvard would admit a high percentage of people who intended to major in computer science? Of course not.
You seem to be. Even amongst the schizophrenic arguments you keep putting forth, you still see to be be harping on the fact that subjective criteria are essentially worthless. If that is the case, then there is no other logical system to put in place.
For the most part, yes. Obviously human biases creep into any process, but the blanket, explicit biases that existed in decades past are largely gone in many parts of higher education.
Asians have higher scores? Is this really that complicated for you to understand?
Why? Should the Knicks have to justify the criteria they use to cut or draft players? Who should these schools have to justify this to? You? A panel of scientists or politicians? Why should they have to prove why they think it’s better to have people from all over the world rather than just right outside their door?
Once again, you miss the point. Asians aren’t innately gifted test takers; they work hard at it like many other non-Asian test takers. They issue is that broadly speaking, Asians have specialized in a specific facet of academia that people are recognizing has diminishing returns quantitatively speaking, then some Asains have gotten angry they are not getting returns on that work quantitatively commensurate with those efforts.
Yes, I can see why this seems like society is just trying to undermine Asians, but by and large, it isn’t. It’s not like someone promised entrance into elite schools based on specific test scores or qualities. This frustration you seem to have is misplaced largely because you seem to have internalized college admissions as some sort of transactional relationship where one is owed a spot because they met certain criteria. That’s not how it works. Perhaps it should work that way, but it doesn’t. You can’t act as if someone reneged on a promise made to you when there was never a deal being made, or a promise offered.
It’s especially weird given that almost every elite school, even those with holistic admissions, has an over-representation of Asians. This idea that there is some grand conspiracy against Asian is just laughable in that respect. As if all these racists can abide by Asian being 45% of the school, but not 60%. That’s just going too far!
Stuff like this also highlights the magnitude of how differently Hispanics and Blacks are treated relative to Asians. There is almost no arena where Whites, in general, would be comfortable with almost half the population being Black or Hispanic unless they have NO other options. If a school or neighborhood has those demographics, White people move, real estate agents stop showing homes, and people start whispering about how that is not the place you want to go. The area becomes tainted. If 50% of the population at Harvard was Black, even if they were still held to the same rigorous “objective” standards, White people would stop applying in short order. There would just be some default assumption that something was wrong with the school.
That’s not to say that Asians aren’t discriminated against, or that White people love Asians, but that chip on your shoulder would be a lot larger if you experienced life as someone who isn’t considered a model minority and didn’t see having your kind slightly less overwhelmingly over-represented as a source of aggrievement.
What needs explanation? Whites enrollment went down for the same reason male enrollment went down. When you create a climate where scrutiny is going to be more focused on quantitative measures, you are going to get more of the people in the groups who are doing well in those criteria.
The major companies in any industry with educated white collar professionals. Certainly working at Apple or Google will help more a professional in tech more than having gone to a specific university. Many industries have kingmakers companies like that (eg. Skadden, Goldman, Deloitte, McKinsey, etc.).
How do you know they are outliers? Regardless, the point obtains. An IQ test tells us very little after a certain point. Einstein’s IQ was supposedly around 160, a full 4 deviations below Tao and a few other less notable people. Do you think a university looking at those scores would be justified in assuming the former was less capable than the latter?
Sure, higher rates of blacks attending college is a good thing. I don’t know how you make the argument that we need to put them in Harvard despite being grossly underqualified compared to their peers. Especially when those underqualified candidates are frequently [usually?] NOT the descendants of American slaves.
Bullshit. There is no crappy medical school in the united States.
Your article refers to a study that pointed out that selective colleges give a boost to low income students. No mention of black or latino except to the extent that black and latino students are frequently low income.
Here is an article by one of the authors of the study:
Is this your personal theory or can you cite to something? because it really just sounds like a pet theory.
Sure, and a black President is good for morale as well.
In medicine the important issue is the primary care doctor. It does very little for the black community if the anesthesiologist or radiologist are black. I suppose a black hospital administrator is probably more important than a black anesthegiologist but you are really starting to push a rope.
And the main reason that black graduation rates increased in California after prop 209 had NOTHING to do with any of those factors. It was purely because black students that would have gone to UC Berkeley ended up going to US San Diego (where graduation rates for black students doubled from 26% to 52%).
I just wanted to extend a thank you to Damuri Ajashi. It’s nice to see someone speaking out so vociferously on behalf of Asians. Usually on this board and elsewhere I get the feeling we are often completely disregarded, told to sit down and shut up, the adults are talking, or passed over completely to talk about black or Hispanic issues. I don’t deny the black and Hispanic communities are profoundly discriminated against but being held up as the ‘model minority’ has its own challenges too.
Damuri Ajashi, I can’t go back and line-item every single point. However, I think the central error in your perspective is the idea that such a thing as “most qualified” students exist, and that that self-evidently ought to be the ones who get into selective colleges. That’s just not how colleges think about it.
Take something like being an Olympic athlete. Generally speaking, that’s a highly desirable thing on a selective college applications. They like Olympic athletes, because anyone who competes in the Olympics has a perspective and a set of experiences than few others have–it suggests dedication, and single-mindedness, and talent married to hard work for years. So if an Olympic athlete has a test score/grade combination that suggests they will be able to handle the academics, they generally have a very good chance of getting in.
Unless one year they get too many. Then, suddenly being an Olympic athlete is an actual liability, because you don’t want too many Olympic Athletes. That’d be boring. The fifth one isn’t going to add anything the first 4 haven’t already. So it’s possible that a kid who otherwise would have gotten in will not get in not in spite of being an Olympic athlete, but because he’s an Olympic athlete and they are full up. It’s a bizarre reality, but there it is. So yeah, if a whole lot of kids who have a very similar resume are applying for a small set of spots, they get shafted. Try to get a nice white girl who dances and edited her school year book into a journalism program sometime. And frankly, a lot of Asian resumes look the same even if you take race entirely out of it: STEM focus, good test scores, stringed instrument, NHS, scattered community service, no sports. That’s a great kid, but 3/4 your applications look like that kid (of whatever race) and you don’t want 3/4 of your student body to be that kid. So in many ways after that it’s a lottery.
This is why it’s easier to get an under-represented minority into MIT (and trust me, it is). They may literally only get a handful of qualified black females who even apply. One or two is getting in. Everyone meets the qualifications, but once you do, you’re in a lottery with the other kids who bring what you bring. And the pool is a lot smaller for some sets of experiences.
You also seem to really see the things that “tiger moms” encourage as real and meaningful, but the things white parents do as simply “gaming the system”. I cannot buy the argument that obsessive SAT prep driving your score up 250 points really makes you more prepared to ace Organic Chemistry but that say, engaging in a sustained and meaningful community service activity for 6 years does not teach you anything relevant to college success. The things you worry about–paid mission trips and titular club presidencies–don’t carry any weight anymore. In fact, they are generally negatives. It’s all about sustained exploration/development/contribution. Developing interesting perspectives so you have something to teach other people.
You are looking at college admissions as a reward, a goal for students to aim at by being the best. But that’s not how admissions offices look at it–they aren’t trying to reward the individuals who are the most academically worthy. They are trying to create an experience and a culture and a community. The goal is not to be the smartest school, and once they are sure a student can handle the work, they don’t inherently pursue the “best” students. It’s not their goal or their mission, any more than a reality TV show casting agent is always looking for the “prettiest” or “more charismatic” people to put of their show. I’m sorry–genuinely sorry–that we lie to high school kids and make them think that that’s how admissions work. But it’s not.
Now, the real criminal problem is that we just need more slots. There are so many people ready, willing, and able to handle the sort of educational experience a selective college can provide–the same is that we are preparing more and more kids each year that can handle it but the number of slots has been the same since the 1960s.
I don’t know if this is true, by someone once told me that universities do not want a class full of valedictorians because professors do not like dealing with students who have never gotten less than an A. Because they will either grade grub you to death or take a leap off a ledge when the inevitable happens.
And if everyone is uber high-achieving and go-gettin’, then you have to find instructors who are equally high-achieving and go-gettin’ and who are willing to maintain that momentum past tenure. Or else the students will be disappointed with the quality of their instruction. It can’t be good if the student body has a higher intellectual capacity than the faculty serving them.
I gotta imagine a class full of class presidents is also problematic. Leaders need followers. And sometimes people’s leadership skills don’t take off until college.
On paper, I didn’t seem qualified for an engineering school. I had good grades in high school and I had a couple of AP courses (English and history) on my transcript, but I had only gone up to trigonometry. My SAT scores were mediocre. I was viola section leader and I tutored little kids, but that was the limit of my extracurriculars. I applied just knowing I wasn’t going to get in, but I was wrong. My race and gender probably helped. But I had a couple of white male classmates who were accepted as well, and while their scores were probably a lot higher than mine, their grades were about as unimpressive as my SAT score was. In retrospect, there’s no reason I should have assumed I was less qualified than they were–especially since they ended up dropping out while I matriculated with honors. I don’t think an average test score marks someone as “less deserving” of premier higher education.