Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Oct 12, 2015.
deal with it.. meritocracy..
Socialists hate hard working, enterprising individuals as it goes against their idea that everyone needs the state to hold their hand to get by in life. Why do you think Jews are hates so much? Why do you think everyone hated the Brits? People hate overachievers as it exposes their own laziness.
Asians are going to have to accept, as whites have, that they will be hated for being successful regardless of how they achieved it. It's a damn shame, America used to be a country of dynamic, ambitious individuals, it's more and more turning into a country of bitter, hateful people who instead of trying to improve their own lot would rather ruin everyone else's.
Just proves that the educational shortcomings of the African and Latino American communities is a social and cultural failure, not an inherent racial feature.
Why do you omit poor whites? Usually in rural areas but not always. They have the same problems as well. And I would say it is a social, cultural, and economic problem.
I know many black women who are highly educated and successful. I think the problem is family structure and values. And it may not be because parents arent taking an interest in thier children and pushing them to achieve academic greatness. Though I am sure there is lots of that happening. But alot of times both parents are so busy working to try and get ahead or to pay bills that they are not around to spend much time with thier kids. Or a single parent who struggles to stay a float. And then there are kids and even adults who dont value a higher education. Who think pursuing one or trying hard in school is dumb or not cool. And then there are people who are too afraid to even try. Because they fear thay trying will leave them with crippling debt from student loans. I had 2 friends. Brother and sister. One went to school for accounting and the other teaching. And they both told me how much they regretted going to school and getting thier degrees. And they didnt know how they would pay them back.
Yeah, it certainly applies to them too; just singling out those two because the narrative generally revolves around them.
The demonization of education is the key reason why so much of the American population is so stupid; it’s quite sad really, but I’m not sure if there’s a way to fix it.
I have no idea either. Best any one can do is keep driving it into kids heads. Whether its your kid, niece or nephew, or even a neighbor kid.
Interesting piece of information regarding Prop 209 in California and Berkeley. People frequently point out that UC Berkeley's number of Asian students went up significantly after the passage of Prop 209. But it appears that the raw numbers might be misleading.
https://advancingjustice-la.org/sites/default/files/Advancing Justice - AAPI Higher Ed Diversity.pdf
Anyway, it's not exculpatory about Harvard's current system which we'll learn about as the litigation progresses but it is informative as to some of the casual talking points that get thrown around.
Some people that fancy themselves "intellectuals" resent successful people that never had a formal education but excelled through innovation and hard work.
After years in academia and degrees some believe they were entitled to
step into a panacea of lucrative opportunities. When the red carpet, complete with adoring fans, is no where to be found the tendency is to blame the system. Salt is added when they see people that went straight to the workplace out of high school become highly successful inspite of never having their IQ tested in a academic setting. This has no place in their paradigm and their not about to reasses what they so smugly invested their time and money in.
Suddenly the socialist/Marxist teaching their professors were selling makes perfect sense.
Kids growing up in the commercial fishing industry run into this at a early age. They grow up around principles of hard work (get paid by a percentage of what the boat makes, could be big or not) and see them being played out every day around them. When they show up in class they already have more real world experience then some of their teachers and recognize bs when they hear it.
What is really irksome is that sometimes they already make more than their teachers.
Socialism could sooth this painful resentment.
I believe you are biased on this issue based on your earlier comments in this thread and the fact that you are a self admitted minority. Have you personally benefited from affirmative action?
You were implying earlier in this thread that the extracurriculars of Asian applicants may not be weighed as heavily as other extras like sports, etc. Implying that all Asians have as extracurriculars are the stereoptypical musical instrument, etc. When that is simply not true.
Of course people believe I'm biased but it's mostly because I refuse to accept these tropes as true. Most people like the idea that they're being victimized by these things and so they kneejerk reject alternative explanations.
Have I personally benefitted from these things? Possibly but unlikely. I've tested into the 99th+ percentile of every admissions test that I ever took going all the way back to elementary school. Exception being the LSAT - I left after an hour because I knew I'd done enough to get into most law schools. I never applied to anywhere where my scores wouldn't qualify for the top 15% of their admissions class. Every scholarship I've ever gotten was test score based so strictly merit.
I've been self-employed my entire adult life and have never benefitted from any hiring or promotion programs to help minorities climb the ranks since every dollar I've ever made, I had to generate the client on my own. I don't get promotions or any such thing. My parents made great money when I was a kid so I don't even get the hard luck benefits and such.
I never implied that the extracurriculars of Asians are not weighed heavily. I stated that certain extracurriculars are over represented in admissions criteria and that, in my experience, Asian students tended towards those extracurriculars (as did I). It is not that the extracurriculars of Asians aren't weighed as heavily, it's that extracurriculars like chess club, violin, piano, math club, Model UN, etc aren't weighed as heavily unless you're elite within them. This is just as true if the student is Asian as it is when the student is white, black or hispanic.
For a stretch of time, most of the Ivy League coaches were selling the same formula to students and it included a heavy dose of "brainy" extracurricular activities. And Asian parents have shown a proclivity towards hiring such coaches for their children. Now, before you overreact, Asian are not the only ones doing so.
Now when the Asian student participation in lacrosse, swimming, ceramics club, film club reaches the same rates as the participation in the aforementioned clubs and still aren't being weighed the same then there's an argument to be made but not prior to.
As for the desire to be victims. I've pointed out multiple times that the HArvard and Princeton have faced similar allegations previously and were vindicated. Doesn't mean Harvard prevails this time but it does mean that people's fears in this area aren't new and weren't true in the past. The person bringing this litigation isn't Asian. It's a white guy who has been doing this all over the country primarily with white kids. The bias in Ivy League admissions is far greater in favor of donors, athletes and legacies but the people who are alleging discrimination against Asians are fixated on blaming it on black students. Yet of the previous groups, unqualified black students are a much smaller percentage of Ivy League admissions that unqualified whites who play the right sports, have rich parents and are legacies. I even included additional information showing that 85% of the alleged discrimination against Asian students is probably coming from these underqualified white kids, not blacks or hispanics.
Yet because the common opinion is lay the blame for various social ills at the feet of black and hispanic communities inability to perform or their cultural unwillingness to excel, most of the above gets overlooked for the superficial and simplistic - "Look at the test scores. The only possible explanation must be aggressive affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians." Yet every village idiot knows that test scores and GPAs have never been the sole admissions criteria to college, not even the elite ones.
People prefer the boogeyman they're comfortable with, even if it's probably not real.
Also, since you seem more likely to prefer this information from an Asian source I thought I'd find the one I'd originally read. Here the author is Asian and went to Harvard, as did his sister.
An Asian attendee who happened to learn something about his and his sister's admissions. He got in because of his intangibles, not his grades or test scores or blase extracurriculars. His younger sister got in because he was already in, not because of her merit either.
That is the nature of college admissions, the same things that people are suggesting are discrimination against Asians is also being used in favor of Asians. I know, it's one example, but I suggest that it is emblematic of how the admission system works in most private universities.
Is it just me or is this whole thing about parents hovering over their kids to do homework and shit a distinctly US thing? Other imports or foreigners, feel free to chime in on your experiences.
I went to elementary and high school in Serbia, was a straight A's student all elementary and mostly A's with a few B's in a pretty hard high school, without parents hovering over me to get shit done all the time or helping me and shit. Sure, here and there they had to yell if I was playing Tomb Raider or Quake or Carmageddon too much but hardly something comparable to what's expected in the US. What the fuck is going on here? These kids aren't stupid, what gives?
You stereotyped Asians earlier as only having the chess club, instrument, etc as admissions criteria. And that those were not weighed as heavily.
I replied that you were actually the one stereotyping. By saying that's all Asians have - when it's not true at all. A lot of the ones rejected from Harvard, Yale, etc had sports and other extras as well. The truth is - these crazy Asian tiger moms will force their kids to do almost anything to get into these schools. If they change the extracurricular criteria to include more sports or other stuff like volunteering - they'll make their kids do that.
It's an undeniable fact - Asians have to score far higher than any other ethnic group (even whites) to get into the same Ivy League schools. There's an unspoken racial quota at these schools.
You kept trying to make an excuse saying perhaps the typical Asian "extracurriculars" are not weighed as heavily. But offered no evidence that the typical Asian applicant has different extras. Basically, you yourself were stereotyping Asian students.
When you got called out on it, you changed the goalposts of your argument by obfuscating. That's why I believed you were biased. It seems like you have an agenda to prove Asians are not hurt by affirmative action, when all hard evidence clearly points to a racial quota.
The average US kid is stupid relative to other developed countries.
No, I didn't. I said that certain activities are overrepresented relative to other activities and so weighed less. I used piano as an example - you treated it as if I said that Asians only play piano. Please don't misquote me.
Please stop misquoting me.
And the Asian extracurricular list is changing precisely because the parents are broadening the extracurricular list. They are moving away from the stereotypical activities pursued by most Ivy League applicants (not just Asians, all Ivy League applicants).
Also, the person who produced the study with the test score differences openly stated that his information did not include extracurricular activities or other "soft variables". Here I'll quote it for you:
Even the most quoted piece of data on this subject admits that it isn't presenting a full picture of the applicants, just the test scores.
That's an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that was proven untrue at Harvard and Princeton previously. Please stop making up things.
Actually, I explained exactly why specific extracurriculars are not weighed as heavily. And I later explained that if you go and read a broad array of websites where Asian students and/or college coaches discuss application criteria, there is a standard theme about diversifying the extracurricular list that they have on their applications.
Now, because it appears that you don't know what quotas are and don't appear to have read very much (including my other link after the post you quoted), you think I'm stereotyping Asians. The reality is that Asian students and college coaches themselves state that these activities are overrepresented ("overrepresented" does not mean "the only ones", it means that are present at a disproportionately large number).
I haven't changed what I said. You just don't like it because it disagrees with the narrative about blanket discrimination (based on facts about how colleges weigh admissions and that this university was cleared of this specific allegation just previously).
Of course this lack of understanding on your part is obvious considering that you keep saying "quotas" when no one, not even the litigants alleging discrimination, are alleging "quotas" . Did you even read my other post regarding the Asian Harvard attendee and his sister? I'll requote part of it for you.
That's one person's opinion - not a "study."
Yea that's called a legacy admissions - which I have a problem with as well.
I'm not arguing that different extracurriculars are not weighed differently.
I'm saying you haven't shown any proof that Asian student's extra's are vastly different from other applicants of different nationality. You're just stating that it is so.
Nothing was "proven" untrue at Harvard and Princeton previously. You act like it's a foregone conclusion.They just won legally and had good lawyers.
That doesn't mean it's decided once and for all. There are plenty of legal cases where the "wrong" side won. The Supreme Court once ruled black people were not American citizens. Recent decisions like Citizens United are also horrible. OJ was deemed not guilty. That doesn't make it right.
Additionally, you only mention Harvard and Princeton and point to that as proof that there is no bias.
But this has been going on for a while at other universities as well and PROVEN to be.
The Justice Department found in the 80's UCLA had been discriminating against Asians in favor of white students.
At Stanford, the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid, after an exhaustive internal investigation, conceded negative action against Asian applicants
“No factor we considered can explain completely the discrepancy in admission rates between Asian Americans and whites.” Subconscious bias by admissions officers was likely the culprit, it concluded, but the Committee “elected not to investigate the bias because ‘the analysis required would be formidable.
A similar episode took place at Brown, where an internal committee found that “Asian American applicants have been treated unfairly in the admissions process.
It's not "decided" like you like to portray.
Students for Fair Admissions, which brought the lawsuit, includes Asian students. It's not only white kids.
Well that's one thing I'm in agreement with you. I don't like legacy admissions either.
No it's not only alleging discrimination in favor of black kids. It's in favor of black, Latino AND white kids.
Asian applicants needed to score — on the 1600 point scale of the “old SAT” — 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than African Americans if other factors are held equal.
Are you seriously trying to say that HUGE of a discrepancy can be explained by differences in extracurriculars?
Say what you want about extracurriculars, but everybody knows grades and test scores are the 2 MOST important factors in college admissions.
This exactly mirrors what happened to Jews in the earlier part of the century.
And another factor - from the 70's on, Asian students admittance were growing at an exponential rate until they started changing the standards. They were gaining admittance at more and more numbers. Then they changed the standards and all of a sudden it dropped off.
Why wouldn't the percentage of Asian students move at all? Even with increasing population numbers, differing number of applicants every year, etc. Shouldn't it naturally vary at least a little bit?
But it has stayed at a certain percentage for years and years now after exponential growth.
That points to an unspoken quota to me.
Pan is a black dude with a hot Indian wife
You know he earned everything he has if he can pull that off.
Yes, one person stating that his extracurricular choices were typical of applicants. Not Asian applicants but Harvard applicants. And it was his atypical film interest and his interview that separated him.
Then you're not disagreeing with anything that I've actually said. You're disagreeing with a more complex point that you are struggling to grasp.
I never said that they're vastly different from other applicants. I said that those extracurriculars are overrepresented in admissions. And so students with great test scores, regardless of nationality, but overrepresented extracurriculars will lose out compared to students with broader extracurriculars, regardless of nationality.
Now, read slowly because this is important:
If the claim is that Asian students are being discriminated against based solely on looking at their high test scores and average GPA's compared to other students, it is not a useful piece of information unless you also have the soft criteria, such as extracurriculars to provide context. Simply having high test scores isn't as valuable when applying to elite colleges because everyone has high test scores so the applicant (of any nationality) needs a broad range of extracurriculars.
Read it again before you start typing. Did you? Ok....
What I have been saying is that high Asian test scores and GPA's are worthless for this discussion because if they have the typical extracurriculars that students, of all nationalities, bring to the table then they are negating their higher test scores by not being unique enough elsewhere. And so they, just like other students with overrepresented extracurriculars will not get in despite having high test scores and GPAs.
That is the core point that you seem to struggle with. High test scores and GPAs don't matter at the elite college level if coupled with typical extracurriculars and there's no reason to assume that the extracurriculars of Asian students diverge significantly from the standard ones presented to Ivy League schools.
Got it, so winning legally doesn't prove anything unless it's your opinion that won? That's pretty insane. You're not looking for truth, you're looking for confirmation of an opinion. And any disagreement with your opinion, even if based in truth, is bias.
Right. It's not decided until it agrees with you.
As for the Stanford stuff, as I pointed out previously - it's not affirmative action that's hurting Asian students. It's negative action in favor of white students, athletes and legacies. The link that I provided, which included the Stanford information and as well as other institutions, points out that 85% of the issue is about white applicants, not other minorities ie not affirmative action. Did you grasp that part of it?
The individual, Blum, who founded Students for Fair Admissions and sets their legal strategy is a white man who has brought multiple suits against multiple universities to challenge admissions. Who cares if they use Asian students as the front for their cases, that's basic litigation - find a sympathetic individual as the face of the case. In this case, he lost the UT case, he's litigating a different case against UNC and he has this one against Harvard.
You should have a baseline bit of knowledge on this litigation.
That's all well and good but if you're looking for why Asian students aren't getting in at greater rates, that's where you should actually be looking, plus donors and underqualified white applicants, instead of non-existent things like "quotas".
I literally quoted the person who put together that data in my last post and he stated that his information is incomplete because he didn't have access to all of the soft criteria, ranging from essays, to extracurriculars, to teacher recommendations. If the person who prepared the data doesn't think it points to bias because it's incomplete, how can you quote his data but reach a different conclusion.
And that's before addressing that those test scores are from over 2 decades ago. How in the world are you using 2 decade old data to discuss discrimination in the current applicant pool?
Seriously, step back for a second and put together the information I'm providing you.
2 most important factors does not mean the only 2 factors. Seriously, you're like someone who understands only half of a conversation. The 95th percentile of the SAT kicks in around 1400. The top 10% is at the mid-1300's. Over half of the admittees to Princeton's freshman class have perfect SAT scores. Stop and think about that for a moment and put it into context.
High test scores and GPA aren't special. They're not unique or even interesting when applying to elite colleges. You can take from the top 15% of the applicant pool with an SAT between 1250 and 1300. So, while applicants need to meet a baseline of scores and GPAs, once you cross that line all of the other stuff starts to matter more.
Really? Amazing? I wonder if it corresponded with a massive uptick in Asian immigrants...
Hmm, population uptick starting in the 1970's coupled with a leveling off in the 2000's. Seems consistent to me.
Thanks for the insightful first-hand account!
Why do you think these people are having such a hard time to just come out and say "Dirt-poor Asian-American students in New York High Schools are doing too well because they actually study and their hard-working parents actually care about their children's future, so we want to do something to help the neglected Hispanic and Black students out", instead of keep beating around the bush?
Separate names with a comma.