Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

I don't visit stormfront.
I don't need to make excuses to make myself feel better. I've had my intelligence tested and I'm more intelligent than atleast 98% of the population rationally. I'm smarter than all the white people I went to school with and know and all the Asians as well. And I went to school with a lot of asians.

It's hard to prove which race is more creative than others, because while iq testing and results have been rigorously studied creativity tests have not. However considering that most of the people who made the greatest contributions to society in mathematics and the sciences were white, ie Pythagorous, Einstein, Hawking, Newton etc, plus almost all of the great philosophers were white and many of the most innovative artists were white, it seems as though that particular race may have an advantage in creativity, much like Asians do in rational intelligence. But it's hard to prove.

I just proposed a theory, it could be right, it could be wrong. I believe the best people should get in, period, i don't care what color of skin they have. Under the current system it would be mostly asian, under the system I'm proposing I still believe there would be a lot of asians at the top, but probably not as much. Moreover creativity is a rare trait, Most people are just slight variations on each other, ie drones, that goes for whites and asians, but a bit more so even for asians in my opinion.

The greater contributions to math were actually from the ancient Arab world (Fertile Crescent)- with some contributions from India, China, Ancient Greece, etc. European contributions only came later during the Renaissance. The Renaissance discoveries were only possible due to the inventions of the Arabs. By that time, the entire Arab world and also China, Asia were still feeling the lingering aftereffects of the Mongol invasions - in turmoil and not in any position to invent anything anymore.

So you can't really have one without the other happening first. To put it into an MMA analogy, it's like your solely praising the Gracies for Jiu-Jitsu and giving no credit to Count Maeda who originally taight them - or even the ancient Japanese who originated the art.


Additionally, I don't believe people when they feel the need to brag about how intelligent they are - that points to an insecure need - not how gifted they are.

Third, all of this "creativity" BS has nothing to do with the topic - because:

1 - You can't prove or encapsulate it in any way for these colleges to test for it.

2 - That is not the reason given by the colleges for why Asians need to score FAR higher.

So stop going off on IRRELEVANT tangents.
 
This whole issue is super simple to cliffnote - they are trying to use public policy to iron out cultural differences.

It's like going to a doctor to get treatment for a mental illness and he prescribes eating a wrench. Zero logic.

But - by using public policy, they get to avoid the uncomfortable question - and we're all about political correctness here, so no surprise in that - which is whether or not all cultures are equal when it comes to the potential for wealth acquisition. This is both uncomfortable and complicated - two words people here hate more than anything...
 
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.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/opinion/yang-harvard-lawsuit/index.html



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.
Yes - it’s one example. An example experienced by the writer himself. What he failed to mention (just alluded to a Distinction average) was his actual mark. It was apparently a so-so mark from the perspective of the admissions officer.

Now would that same officer had thought it average or middling if it was a Black? I doubt it. Could have been a Black with no extra-curriculars, no community presence, upper middle class parents...the whole deal. And he would have shot to the top of acceptance list. Probably on to the Deans list. That is the real racism that the Asian writer so conveniently wants to ignore
 
The whole story shows a disconnect between what people feel the Ivy League should be and what it actually is and is seen as by its administrators. Its not about accepting the highest performing students, its about increasing the resources of the University through legacies admissions and admissions for students related to donors as well as reproducing the ruling elite by taking the children of said elite, with some academic high achievers, and exposing them to the elite networks that facilitate their rise to the top. When selecting students who aren't legacy or donor related, they still want students who fit a certain mold of what they feel the ruling elite should be and unfortunately Asian students do not fit that mold.

I have a slight quibble with "highest performing". I think the disconnect is about how people are defining "highest performing" and how the Ivy League defines it. Most people are only looking at performance on the academic scale and everything else is meant to support or round out the academic performance. Whereas, the schools are using a broader field of performance and, in some cases, academics support or round out the other categories. Academics might be the most important area for demonstrating high performance but it's not the only one.

As I've said in other threads, this isn't just an issue at the Ivy League level. It's all the way down the line. People keep insisting that academic performance should trump all other measures of value when society consistently tells them otherwise. Athletic ability is a value. Money is an obvious value. Influence is a value. And then there's the extrapolations about who will eventually obtain money and/or influence.

I was reading something elsewhere about the real disconnect between education for the middle class and education for the elite. The middle class are told that academic meritocracy is what matters and drives outcomes. The elite are told that academic meritocracy isn't that important - connections and influence are. So the middle class go to school and strive to be the top of the class. The elite go to school to get educated but the relationships that they create are what really matters. You need to be educated. You don't need to be the best educated.

And the Ivy's seem to firmly grasp this concept because they created it here in the U.S. If someone just wanted the best education there are better choices. MIT, U of Chicago, etc.

What's really happening (in society, not in this case - this case isn't really about this subject) is that people who specialize in academic excellence are upset that the schools they want to attend aren't exclusively about academic excellence. It's a bit like studying for a calculus test and then finding out it's going to be calculus and English lit.
 
I have a slight quibble with "highest performing". I think the disconnect is about how people are defining "highest performing" and how the Ivy League defines it. Most people are only looking at performance on the academic scale and everything else is meant to support or round out the academic performance. Whereas, the schools are using a broader field of performance and, in some cases, academics support or round out the other categories. Academics might be the most important area for demonstrating high performance but it's not the only one.

As I've said in other threads, this isn't just an issue at the Ivy League level. It's all the way down the line. People keep insisting that academic performance should trump all other measures of value when society consistently tells them otherwise. Athletic ability is a value. Money is an obvious value. Influence is a value. And then there's the extrapolations about who will eventually obtain money and/or influence.

I was reading something elsewhere about the real disconnect between education for the middle class and education for the elite. The middle class are told that academic meritocracy is what matters and drives outcomes. The elite are told that academic meritocracy isn't that important - connections and influence are. So the middle class go to school and strive to be the top of the class. The elite go to school to get educated but the relationships that they create are what really matters. You need to be educated. You don't need to be the best educated.

And the Ivy's seem to firmly grasp this concept because they created it here in the U.S. If someone just wanted the best education there are better choices. MIT, U of Chicago, etc.

What's really happening (in society, not in this case - this case isn't really about this subject) is that people who specialize in academic excellence are upset that the schools they want to attend aren't exclusively about academic excellence. It's a bit like studying for a calculus test and then finding out it's going to be calculus and English lit.

This could all be legal if these colleges were completely private, but they all get federal funding so discrimination should not be allowed. Either give up the federal funding or get rid of bias/discrimination in admissions standards.

Everyone pays taxes, so you can't have both.

I know you are an intelligent person, yet I'm disappointed because you are not being more intellectually honest.

Your original point was that there was no discrimination and the differences in scores vs admissions could be explained by extracurriculars. That was easily disproven because the recent subpoena of Harvard's internal records show Asian students had HIGHER extracurricular scores than all applicants.

Then you claimed Asian population numbers have been static since the 2000's and that explains the complete leveling off of Asian admissions. This isn't remotely true and was easily disproven as the complete opposite.

Now you are condescendingly saying we don't fully grasp how these admissions work.

Seems more like you are jumping through hoops trying to justify discrimination and changing the goalposts of your argument - instead of looking at the data objectively.
 
Last edited:
Yes - it’s one example. An example experienced by the writer himself. What he failed to mention (just alluded to a Distinction average) was his actual mark. It was apparently a so-so mark from the perspective of the admissions officer.

Now would that same officer had thought it average or middling if it was a Black? I doubt it. Could have been a Black with no extra-curriculars, no community presence, upper middle class parents...the whole deal. And he would have shot to the top of acceptance list. Probably on to the Deans list. That is the real racism that the Asian writer so conveniently wants to ignore

He's not ignoring anything. He points out that he wasn't exceptional, meaning unique, but he did well on his in person interview. He notes that his scores were not special but his intangibles that weren't in his application made him attractive. Your claim that if it was black student with a lesser application that they would have shot to the top of the acceptance list isn't based on anything written anywhere. The biggest gap here being that admission and "top of the list" aren't the same thing and aren't interchangeable. It's just...empty.

Whereas, the author's article is consistent with what we've read elsewhere. Standard top end high school student but not special by Harvard standards. Student demonstrates skills and interests beyond the normal academic applicant and so is pushed for admission despite the mediocre-for-Harvard academics. As a result of his admission, his sister gets an admission boost when she applies 2 years later. He's one example but his one example is consistent with what we've read and comes from his sister's presence in the admissions process.

There are people with perfect scores that get denied admission. In fact, based on the numbers that came out, Harvard could fill their entry classes with perfect GPA's and SAT scores and still reject more such kids than they admit. But without knowing more about their admissions packets, it's empty speculation as to why.

I was reading a very interesting article on prep schools and their relationships with elite colleges and the amount of back room wheeling and dealing to construct these classes is substantial. I'd place a solid bet that if you looked at where the "under qualified" students come from, you'd find that quiet a few of them are coming from elite prep school backgrounds.

I'm doing a lot of writing in this thread to re-iterate a core point. People don't understand how this system works and knee jerk assume racial discrimination because the other components are too uncomfortable to openly discuss. That's separate from this lawsuit - which is about eliminating all race considerations from the admissions process. And if they win, I think people are going to very surprised and how little it's going to change the actual class make ups. And before you or anyone else references Prop 209 in California - I posted a link several pages back that outline how the difference in Asian admissions before and after Prop 209 don't support the conclusion that Prop 209 boosted Asian admittance rates.
 
The greater contributions to math were actually from the ancient Arab world (Fertile Crescent)- with some contributions from India, China, Ancient Greece, etc. European contributions only came later during the Renaissance. The Renaissance discoveries were only possible due to the inventions of the Arabs. By that time, the entire Arab world and also China, Asia were still feeling the lingering aftereffects of the Mongol invasions - in turmoil and not in any position to invent anything anymore.

So you can't really have one without the other happening first. To put it into an MMA analogy, it's like your solely praising the Gracies for Jiu-Jitsu and giving no credit to Count Maeda who originally taight them - or even the ancient Japanese who originated the art.


Additionally, I don't believe people when they feel the need to brag about how intelligent they are - that points to an insecure need - not how gifted they are.

Third, all of this "creativity" BS has nothing to do with the topic - because:

1 - You can't prove or encapsulate it in any way for these colleges to test for it.

2 - That is not the reason given by the colleges for why Asians need to score FAR higher.

So stop going off on IRRELEVANT tangents.

I didn't point out my intelligence just out of the blue. You implied that I was somehow jealous or insecure over Asians being smart.

As a response I merely pointed out that why would I be? I'm smarter than the average person from EVERY race. My intelligence is between 2 and 3 standard deviations above the mean, depending on the test I took. The average Asian from China, S Korea or Japan is roughly 107. Which is half a standard deviation above the mean.

Yes, the arabs contributed a fair bit to mathematics. But arabs aren't the same as asians. Also, you can make excuses about why white people didn't contribute more than they did as well, the church burned scientists and mathematicians at the stake for a long time, which stifled advancement. Even still they have contributed great things to the field.

I've given names of people who contributed incredible breakthroughs to humanity in math and science such as Newton, Tesla, Pythagoras,Turing, Einstein, Hawking etc and yes the arabs contributed as well. Asian people, despite their grades in structured learning environments and scores on iq tests have not been able to produce genius's who shaped the world with their creations, not on that level atleast. Which indicates that creativity is not their strong suit.

Just the fact that you're arguing that a conformist culture that never produced the level of and quantity of breakthroughs that other cultures did is somehow just as creative as cultures that are less conformist means that you should take some courses in psychology. The entire basis of creativity is in not being a conformist, in not being part of a collective and a it's well known that most of the top asian countries are conformist cultures so much so that major news sites are talking about it openly in our ridiculously pc culture. https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosm...-doesnt-have-its-own-steve-jobs/#36e7e2711219

Personally, it seems as though you are butthurt for whatever reason that Asians aren't the best at everything intellectual. You seem to revel in the fact that Asians have higher iq's than most races, but are actually accusing me of being a member of stormfront just because I'm proposing that a conformist culture may not produce the most gifted people creatively in aggregate, while I also stated that there can still be highly creative Asian people.

I said in previous posts in this thread that I don't approve of this situation.

"I believe the best people should get in, period, i don't care what color of skin they have."

"Anyhow these gender, race, diversity quotas do suck. The best qualified people should get in period, but we should change the qualification criteria as I stated."

I will reiterate. Based on the system that we have the best people should get in ie, the people with the best grades and test scores, ie primarily asians, diversity quotas suck. And even under my proposed system I previously stated in this thread that there would STILL be a lot of Asians at the top.

"Under the current system it would be mostly asian, under the system I'm proposing I still believe there would be a lot of asians at the top, but probably not as much."

Also it is possible to test for creativity, it's called a divergent thinking test and it's been done. https://www.innovation-creativity.com/creativity-test.html

If we want more people like Newton, etc from whatever race, it would be an idea to use, study and refine this type of testing.
 
He's not ignoring anything. He points out that he wasn't exceptional, meaning unique, but he did well on his in person interview. He notes that his scores were not special but his intangibles that weren't in his application made him attractive. Your claim that if it was black student with a lesser application that they would have shot to the top of the acceptance list isn't based on anything written anywhere. The biggest gap here being that admission and "top of the list" aren't the same thing and aren't interchangeable. It's just...empty.

Whereas, the author's article is consistent with what we've read elsewhere. Standard top end high school student but not special by Harvard standards. Student demonstrates skills and interests beyond the normal academic applicant and so is pushed for admission despite the mediocre-for-Harvard academics. As a result of his admission, his sister gets an admission boost when she applies 2 years later. He's one example but his one example is consistent with what we've read and comes from his sister's presence in the admissions process.

There are people with perfect scores that get denied admission. In fact, based on the numbers that came out, Harvard could fill their entry classes with perfect GPA's and SAT scores and still reject more such kids than they admit. But without knowing more about their admissions packets, it's empty speculation as to why.

I was reading a very interesting article on prep schools and their relationships with elite colleges and the amount of back room wheeling and dealing to construct these classes is substantial. I'd place a solid bet that if you looked at where the "under qualified" students come from, you'd find that quiet a few of them are coming from elite prep school backgrounds.

I'm doing a lot of writing in this thread to re-iterate a core point. People don't understand how this system works and knee jerk assume racial discrimination because the other components are too uncomfortable to openly discuss. That's separate from this lawsuit - which is about eliminating all race considerations from the admissions process. And if they win, I think people are going to very surprised and how little it's going to change the actual class make ups. And before you or anyone else references Prop 209 in California - I posted a link several pages back that outline how the difference in Asian admissions before and after Prop 209 don't support the conclusion that Prop 209 boosted Asian admittance rates.
No sorry - if you’ve kept up with the case, and I’m not talking about 209 as it’s pretty ancient and not part of the case. This guy’s anecdote is both incomplete as evidence and does not in the slightest prove his overall point. It’s just an anecdote.

Now if you can find me numerous African Americans with perfect or close to perfect SATs, subjects, extra curriculars....all the pretty tangible qualities that admissions look at, that got denied admission to Harvard....hell - find me one, then the defendant and their supporters might have a point. The plaintiff has plenty. This lawsuit is so basic unless one is determined to ignore the facts for a racist admissions policy.
 
59 pages of 'how bad asians have it in this country' and no sign of slowing down. thats some grade A win there gentlemen.
 
So basically Asians are rustled that a black kid or two may get into thier high schools?

If that's what you get out of the entire article that you quoted, you are seriously not ready for this discussion.

PS: it's Asian-Americans we're talking about here, not foreign students from Asia. Why do you insists on referring to them as if they're not Americans? You don't call African-Americans who were born and grew up in the U.S "Africans", do you? o_O
 
Last edited:
I didn't point out my intelligence just out of the blue. You implied that I was somehow jealous or insecure over Asians being smart.

As a response I merely pointed out that why would I be? I'm smarter than the average person from EVERY race. My intelligence is between 2 and 3 standard deviations above the mean, depending on the test I took. The average Asian from China, S Korea or Japan is roughly 107. Which is half a standard deviation above the mean.

LOL You are smarter than people of EVERY race! 2-3 Standard Deviations above! I believe you! Because that's what highly intelligent people do - brag about it on a mixed martial arts forum.

No need to point out how allegedly smart you are. It's a little pathetic bragging about how intelligent you are on an internet forum when there's no way to prove it.

People who are really gifted don't go around bragging. Everybody just knows because it's plainly obvious. You just bringing it up out of the blue and bragging about it just tells me you are insecure - not gifted.

It's like screaming "I have a big penis - really I do!!" Ok there buddy. No one asked you.

Additionally, I didn't say you were jealous or anything - I said the people on Stormfront make excuses like that. Nothing to do with you.

I've given names of people who contributed incredible breakthroughs to humanity in math and science such as Newton, Tesla, Pythagoras,Turing, Einstein, Hawking etc and yes the arabs contributed as well. Asian people, despite their grades in structured learning environments and scores on iq tests have not been able to produce genius's who shaped the world with their creations, not on that level atleast. Which indicates that creativity is not their strong suit.

Just the fact that you're arguing that a conformist culture that never produced the level of and quantity of breakthroughs that other cultures did is somehow just as creative as cultures that are less conformist means that you should take some courses in psychology. The entire basis of creativity is in not being a conformist, in not being part of a collective and a it's well known that most of the top asian countries are conformist cultures so much so that major news sites are talking about it openly in our ridiculously pc culture. https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosm...-doesnt-have-its-own-steve-jobs/#36e7e2711219

Personally, it seems as though you are butthurt for whatever reason that Asians aren't the best at everything intellectual. You seem to revel in the fact that Asians have higher iq's than most races, but are actually accusing me of being a member of stormfront just because I'm proposing that a conformist culture may not produce the most gifted people creatively in aggregate, while I also stated that there can still be highly creative Asian people.

Not butthurt at all - I don't care nor did I say Asians were best at everything intellectual. You're just putting words in my mouth and projecting.

I'm saying you're pointing out things that are irrelevant and no way to prove - and is also completely subjective. We are talking about the criteria on Ivy League school admissions. What you brought up doesn't factor into the admissions decision making process.
 
Last edited:
No sorry - if you’ve kept up with the case, and I’m not talking about 209 as it’s pretty ancient and not part of the case. This guy’s anecdote is both incomplete as evidence and does not in the slightest prove his overall point. It’s just an anecdote.

Now if you can find me numerous African Americans with perfect or close to perfect SATs, subjects, extra curriculars....all the pretty tangible qualities that admissions look at, that got denied admission to Harvard....hell - find me one, then the defendant and their supporters might have a point. The plaintiff has plenty. This lawsuit is so basic unless one is determined to ignore the facts for a racist admissions policy.

Of course it's just an anecdote. I said that when I posted it. The person's anecdotal story is provided in support of his statements regarding discrimination. As evidence, it doesn't prove anything. It lends credence to a position, it doesn't prove the position.

And finding any African Americans with perfect SAT scores or whatever that got denied admission to Harvard wouldn't prove that there was discrimination against Asian Americans. Listen carefully - Harvard gets applications from hundreds of kids with perfect SAT scores, thousands of kids with near perfect scores. They only admit 1600 kids to their entire freshman class. By the laws of basic fucking math, thousands of kids with incredible academic resumes are getting rejected from Harvard. Harvard has always made clear that academic progress isn't the only thing that matters. So constantly reverting back to perfect SAT scores or such is just wasting time. If you're going to ask for something, ask for something that actually has a bearing on the matter.

But you know this. It's why you asked for all of the "tangible qualities". By specifically limiting your request to tangible, you're highlighting that you know that intangible qualities matter too. But you don't want to actively address that component of admissions.

Most people know this. It's why they constantly try to limit the discussion to GPA's and SAT scores. To avoid the more nuanced aspect of the conversation. By the very nature of what we know, we know that Harvard must be filling their classes with kids of all races who didn't get perfect scores on the SAT or ACT or have perfect GPA. Yet, it's only the possible black admittees who are a problem. There are white, Hispanic, and Asian students with less than perfect scores who also got in alongside the black ones. As an evidentiary point, it's pretty low level.

I tend to take that as a sign of disingenuousness on the topic when someone defaults to the perfect SAT score line of argument here.

I don't mind discussing a subject but if you're going to lead with some angle about "evidence" and proving a point and then make a request for information that wouldn't prove the point you're making....well, that just doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
But you know this. It's why you asked for all of the "tangible qualities". By specifically limiting your request to tangible, you're highlighting that you know that intangible qualities matter too. But you don't want to actively address that component of admissions.

Most people know this. It's why they constantly try to limit the discussion to GPA's and SAT scores. To avoid the more nuanced aspect of the conversation. By the very nature of what we know, we know that Harvard must be filling their classes with kids of all races who didn't get perfect scores on the SAT or ACT or have perfect GPA. Yet, it's only the possible black admittees who are a problem. There are white, Hispanic, and Asian students with less than perfect scores who also got in alongside the black ones. As an evidentiary point, it's pretty low level.

I tend to take that as a sign of disingenuousness on the topic when someone defaults to the perfect SAT score line of argument here.

I don't mind discussing a subject but if you're going to lead with some angle about "evidence" and proving a point and then make a request for information that wouldn't prove the point you're making....well, that just doesn't make any sense.

Harvard's internal 2013 report that was just subpoenaed (even though Harvard heavily redacted it) still showed bias. Harvard was fighting really hard not to show these internal documents in court.

Alumni interviewers gave Asian-Americans personal ratings comparable to those of whites. But the admissions office gave them the worst scores of any ethnic group, often WITHOUT MEETING THEM.

They started off with a lower personality score BEFORE they were interviewed or often without interviewing them at all. That shows implicit bias.

I don't know why you keep ignoring this.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's just an anecdote. I said that when I posted it. The person's anecdotal story is provided in support of his statements regarding discrimination. As evidence, it doesn't prove anything. It lends credence to a position, it doesn't prove the position.

And finding any African Americans with perfect SAT scores or whatever that got denied admission to Harvard wouldn't prove that there was discrimination against Asian Americans. Listen carefully - Harvard gets applications from hundreds of kids with perfect SAT scores, thousands of kids with near perfect scores. They only admit 1600 kids to their entire freshman class. By the laws of basic fucking math, thousands of kids with incredible academic resumes are getting rejected from Harvard. Harvard has always made clear that academic progress isn't the only thing that matters. So constantly reverting back to perfect SAT scores or such is just wasting time. If you're going to ask for something, ask for something that actually has a bearing on the matter.

But you know this. It's why you asked for all of the "tangible qualities". By specifically limiting your request to tangible, you're highlighting that you know that intangible qualities matter too. But you don't want to actively address that component of admissions.

Most people know this. It's why they constantly try to limit the discussion to GPA's and SAT scores. To avoid the more nuanced aspect of the conversation. By the very nature of what we know, we know that Harvard must be filling their classes with kids of all races who didn't get perfect scores on the SAT or ACT or have perfect GPA. Yet, it's only the possible black admittees who are a problem. There are white, Hispanic, and Asian students with less than perfect scores who also got in alongside the black ones. As an evidentiary point, it's pretty low level.

I tend to take that as a sign of disingenuousness on the topic when someone defaults to the perfect SAT score line of argument here.

I don't mind discussing a subject but if you're going to lead with some angle about "evidence" and proving a point and then make a request for information that wouldn't prove the point you're making....well, that just doesn't make any sense.
You’re deliberately missing my point. I’m sure there are Asians with perfect SAT scores that didn’t get in. That’s ok. And as the author of your cited piece - some imperfect scores. That’s ok too.

What’s not ok is if Harvard is treating some racesffr more favorably than others because that’s clearly what’s happening. Do they have an ‘out’ in that there will be some less than academically elite Asians get in? I’d say yes. But when you hear things like Asians getting rated lower on a ‘personality scale’ or other such unproven things, it does give cause to pause and say “this ain’t right”
 
If that's what you get out of the entire article that you quoted, you are seriously not ready for this discussion.

For starter, it's Asian-Americans we're talking about here. You don't call African-Americans who were born and grew up in the U.S "Africans", do you? o_O


I was born ready bro.

Your brilliant argument cuts deep.
 
I really wish our country would stop calling people Asian-American or African-American unless they actually moved over here from their home countries. We are all American period.

Funny thing is I have a white friend from South Africa and he truly is African-American and yet he cannot use that identity in fear of being called a racist.
 
You’re deliberately missing my point. I’m sure there are Asians with perfect SAT scores that didn’t get in. That’s ok. And as the author of your cited piece - some imperfect scores. That’s ok too.

What’s not ok is if Harvard is treating some racesffr more favorably than others because that’s clearly what’s happening. Do they have an ‘out’ in that there will be some less than academically elite Asians get in? I’d say yes. But when you hear things like Asians getting rated lower on a ‘personality scale’ or other such unproven things, it does give cause to pause and say “this ain’t right”

It's not clear that's what's happening. That's the whole point. People who claim that's happening are almost exclusively focusing on GPA's and test scores. That is the crux of the biggest debate point there - If Harvard only admitted based on GPA and SAT scores, the admissions class would be different. Sure but that's fucking stupid.

Why would Harvard not admit the kids of donors, the siblings of attendees, athletes, people with musical talent, kids with potential not demonstrated by current academic accomplishments, etc? Doing so would dramatically reduce Harvard's clout in dozens of fields where it maintains a strong reputation.

Getting rated lower on personality shouldn't cause anyone to say "this ain't right". This particular area is one where there's a lot of hypocritical bullshitting being passed off as morality. As a point of pride, Asian-Americans have often joked about the single minded focus that their parents put on education to the exclusion of many of areas of interest. The term "tiger mom" is bandied about with pride. That single-minded focus on academics over everything else is often pointed to as a key difference between Asian-Americans and other groups of people. There's even a random meme about it.

Yet, after spending all of this being prideful about such a specific set of interests and devoting significant time towards that interest, people are then complaining that some external source is measuring the same thing? That is a bit insincere.

I'm half-Jamaican. One of the things Jamaicans like to boast about is being fast sprinters and working more jobs at the same time than anyone else. It would be absurd for us to be proud of that and then get upset that other people say "Jamaicans are fast but we also need some discus throwers and they're not great as discus." Well, if we spend all of our time focusing on sprinting and telling people that we're focused on sprinting, we can't be upset when we don't get high marks in non-sprinting categories. We want to be known as sprinters, not high jumpers or decathletes, so that's what we've become good at. And we can't be upset because we don't get scored in high jumping and the decathlon as highly as we get scored in sprinting.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,245
Messages
55,267,527
Members
174,713
Latest member
F5CHAMPIONSHIP
Back
Top