Law The War On Asian-American Students' Success - NYC Mayor’s Plan To Scrap Entrance Exam Has Failed

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Arkain2K, Oct 12, 2015.

  1. Bargey

    Bargey Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    I think that’s a great point with the STEM fields - 95% of it is having a top notch problem solving / equation solving brain. 4% is probably resilience qualities and somewhere in the remaining 1% is personality. Even a field like law requires a rigorous attention to detail and an intellectual capacity far more than it requires personality skills, despite what the likes of Suits and Boston Legal would have you think.

    You work the hardest, you get the marks then you should get the prize. This seems to be asians moreso than others.

    It’s baffling that posters who are so sensitive to social and racial injustice can suddenly see things in an opposite way because the victims are Asians and the offenders are their ideological soulmates.

    Well actually it’s not baffling - it’s the left in a nutshell.
     
  2. Eusung

    Eusung Purple Belt

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    3,312
    Yes the system encourages kids to go the same route...attending multiple after school academies...up to 7. It's a survival of the fittest situation and it's terrible.

    Blue collar work is really frowned upon. Social sciences and arts are considered too risky.

    This video made by an adorable 7th grader explains it pretty well:

     
    Which Doctor likes this.
  3. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    But that's not really true either. It is true if you're talking about simply getting a job in the profession.

    It's not true if you're talking about rising to the head of the organization or becoming a recognized leader in an industry. A significant part of that has nothing to do with problem solving/equation solving. For example - people are more likely to promote extroverts to leadership positions. It's not because they're smarter than the introverts.

    There are a wide range of personality components that play a role in rising to the top of organizational structures. And if you're looking for CEO's, you have to look beyond the grades.

    Here:
    1. https://www.businessinsider.com/most-self-made-millionaires-didnt-get-as-in-school-2015-4
    There's a lot more to determining long term success than strictly grades. In law school there's a joke that goes something like this "A students become good lawyers, C students become rich." Everyone in law school is smart. Some are much smarter than others. But success in the real world and success in the classroom require different skills. You don't have to be the best law student to be the most successful lawyer. You can't be trash - you have to be at least broadly competent.

    That people keep pretending they don't know this baffles me.
     
  4. Which Doctor

    Which Doctor The ATT Heel Stable/Faction Belt

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,633
    Likes Received:
    36,670
    Location:
    #mybusiness w/ Heenan, Bockwinkle, & Covington
    They aren't pretending.
     
    panamaican likes this.
  5. Roaming East

    Roaming East Ficti pravique tenax

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    2,545
    That makes it worse
     
    panamaican and Which Doctor like this.
  6. Hog-train

    Hog-train Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,903
    Likes Received:
    1,593
    Location:
    NYC
    You're the one selectively ignoring what the information and lawsuit revealed. And I suspect it is because you are black, so have a vested interest in defending AA at these Ivy Leagues.

    Part of the "personal score" includes a "diversity" component. Asian students were already pre-selected to get a lower personality score often without an interview.

    You keep referencing legacies and student athletes - kind of muddying the issue. No one said this didn't exist or that it was right. Everybody already knows that. And it's a larger factor than race when it helps students get in.

    But this suit is about racial discrimination. It's not a suit arguing against legacies.

    During the trial, Duke University economist, Peter Arcidiacono, had mined the data by already taking out applicants who were favored because they were legacies, athletes, the children of staff, etc. Because he wanted to look at the pure effect of race on admissions, unclouded by other factors.
     
    Bargey likes this.
  7. Roaming East

    Roaming East Ficti pravique tenax

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    2,545
    Black people have a vested interest in preserving an institution that primarily benefits white women? News to me. Are they at least chubby?
     
    panamaican likes this.
  8. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    Again, you didn't read the information. Low income Asians were given different scores than high income Asians.

    One more time - the personality score includes more things than the in-person interview. So, someone can can have a high or low personality score based on the elements of their resume. The in-person interview then modifies that score. If you're going to critique that component of the interview process at least understand how it works.

    I do think it's amusing that in a thread where you are complaining about racial discrimination, you're assigning me a position in part based on my race.
     
  9. Hog-train

    Hog-train Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,903
    Likes Received:
    1,593
    Location:
    NYC
    That's a red herring. No one said socioeconomic status is not a factor in admissions. Again you obfuscate with irrelevant information.

    You are the one ignoring information.

    Diversity is a part of the "personal score." That is a known fact and acknowledged by the schools.

    No one said there weren't other factors.

    The question remains: how much of an impact should the "personal score" have on admissions? Especially when it's a subjective measurement?

    That's only one of many criteria including an extracurricular score, grades, and test scores. Every other single hard metric is in favor of the Asian students.

    Literally the only other metric that Asian students don't average higher is the "personal score" which includes diversity as a criteria.

    The personal score should not account for Asians needing to score 140 SAT points higher than whites, 320 SAT higher than Hispanics, and 450 SAT higher than African Americans.

    That's what you're trying to claim. That Asians should get so low a subjective "personal score" that it accounts for hundreds of points on the SAT.

    Well that's not what I believe. I think the Ivy Leagues are using the subjective "personal score" to have more "diversity." This may be ok to a certain degree, but not to the point where you need to score hundreds of SAT points more than other groups. That's ridiculous.
     
  10. Hog-train

    Hog-train Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,903
    Likes Received:
    1,593
    Location:
    NYC
    Yes, because it still benefits them. So why wouldn't they support it.

    Also I support affirmative action personally (even if it doesn't benefit me) - but only to a degree. This Harvard case is taking it too far.
     
    dontsnitch likes this.
  11. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    Read slowly:
    1) 10% of the Harvard Class comes from 19 schools. 3% comes from just 2 of those schools. This is predetermined. These seats are set aside for those schools.
    2) 83% of Athletes get admitted. A school with a <5% admissions rate is admitting 83% of its athlete applicants. Do you really think that the Athletes are just that much smarter than the regular applicant pool?
    3) More than 25% of the admittees have a family member who previously went there. Again, <5% admissions rate but they can fill a full quarter of their class specifically for legacies.

    Glad that you can finally acknowledge that are many different factors to the personal score. And that within Asian applicants, Asian scores differ based on those factors...just like for everyone else. Low income students scored differently. Extracurriculars scored differently. In fact, within Asians, all of the various non-academic criteria were scored based on the specific criteria...just like for everyone else. All high income students were different from low income students. Harvard specifically sought out low income students. All extracurriculars were different based on the extracurricular. Asians with the right extracurriculars scored higher than those with the wrong ones.

    You keep retreating to the SAT scores. Why don't you address the actual data which showed that Asians didn't need high SAT scores to overcome their low personal scores. They needed high SAT scores to overcome legacies, donors and athletes.

    But that doesn't fit your race-based obsession so you're ignoring it.

    Legacies, athletes, the children of donors and the kids who went to the right high schools (10% of the freshman class comes from 19 pre-selected high schools) all received preferential admissions criteria and had test score well below the Harvard average.

    Not blacks, not whites. Donors. Legacies. Athletes. Students from 17 boarding schools. 61 students from 2 private schools in Boston.

    But hey who cares about being accurate when you can be a hypocrite and just accuse people of taking a position based on race?
     
    Roaming East likes this.
  12. Roaming East

    Roaming East Ficti pravique tenax

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    2,545
    What proof do you have that AA is helping blacks? Cause the number of blacks going to college hasn’t spiked or dramatically increased out of proportion with increased college participation. The ONLY group that has seen a generational boom in college admission in excess of their population is white women
     
  13. Bargey

    Bargey Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    I don’t doubt any of that. But what’s that got to do with discrimination against Asians? If anything, that just bolsters my argument. A CEO or an entrepreneur frankly doesn’t need to have been the first person chosen by Harvard. Hell, look at guys like Zuckerberg, they don’t even need a degree.

    But the vast majority of university graduates are not CEOs. In the STEM field they may be engineers, analysts, scientists, number crunchers whatever. There has to be a consistent and fair measure of acceptance. And that’s what this comes down to - they’re unfairly treated due to their Asian ethnicity.
     
  14. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    That isn't even a position. It certainly doesn't bolster your argument.

    If you're looking for people who might one day become CEO's then you're going to look for different things than someone who is just looking for engineers, analysts and scientists.

    If I'm hiring an employee to process real estate transactions I'm looking for different things than if I'm looking for an employee who can go out and generate business.

    If you can agree that is true then before you can say "discrimination" you have to first establish which type of employee I'm looking for. If I'm looking for rainmakers and you're judging discrimination based on transaction processing skills then you're basing your analysis on the wrong criteria.
     
  15. Bargey

    Bargey Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    I’m saying it’s for the individual to make the choices that will see them rise to a CEO or leadership position and the eventual company to decide if their candidate fits their criteria for a CEO or whatever. What you don’t get to do as a uni is say “so and so is Asian so we are
    a) going to judge them against a subjective ‘leadership’ criteria and
    b) penalize them for not having those ‘leadership’ skills without any foundation (but then accepting blacks / latinos / Indians with even less leadership skills and lesser grades)
     
  16. superpunch

    superpunch Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    12,998
    Whenever I have these discussions with someone, I like to put the shoe on the other foot.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I just I can't imagine that you'd be OK with any subjective criteria that resulted in black people having to score 380/1600 extra SAT points to reach parity.

    If 6% of black people with 3.2s and 40%ile MCATs were getting into med school while 60% of white with those numbers people were, you wouldn't be OK with that.

    If anyone tried these arguments like "white people have better personalities than black people and so black people need to score 380 SAT points higher than white people" that you're presenting to justify it, you'd call them racist. I could be wrong. But it's just the strongest gut feeling ever.
     
    lifelessheap and dontsnitch like this.
  17. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    @Bargey

    About a year ago, I had a conversation with my business partner that was similar to the theme I was mentioning. We're hiring someone to work alongside our main staff member. We have a bunch of interviews lined up. One day we've got 2 women scheduled to come in. Both have basic competence in the job but one is really impressive on paper ("Molly"), the other is good but not great ("Jenny").

    So, Molly comes in, we hit her with the questions. She's on point. We ask her about her ability to generate business, she's less certain. She's never really done it. Not that social. We bring in Jenny. She's on point, not as good as Molly though. We ask her about generating business, she gives us her experience.

    My partner and I sit down to discuss them. Molly's the better employee, Jenny has the chance to help our business grow. Jenny's preferable because we need to grow.

    Here's the kicker: We didn't hire either of them. We hired a woman with deep connections in the local real estate community. She wasn't better on paper than either of the other 2 but her connections were worth much, much more.

    And that's this whole Harvard thing in a nutshell. Do we hire Molly, Jenny, or the woman with the best connections. And each of those applicants wants the job just as badly as the others.

    And, caveat, that doesn't mean that Harvard isn't discriminating against Asians. It just means that if you're going to make that claim, it has to be in context of who Harvard is actually looking for.
     
    Staph infection likes this.
  18. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    36,030
    Likes Received:
    34,305
    They're judging everyone on the subjective leadership criteria, not just Asians.

    And how do you know that the blacks/latinos/Indians that they're admitting have less leadership skills? Lesses grades you might be able to establish but the leadership stuff? What's the criteria you're using?
     
  19. Bargey

    Bargey Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    @panamaican We are having a philosophical debate where you are bringing up facts or reasoning that I don’t disagree with. You’re comparing your own micro-level business good faith personnel decisions to Harvard’s bad faith acceptance decisions that are discriminatory and on a much broader level. What we clearly disagree on i suspect is the actual forensic facts of the case. If there’s a genuine process to accept on whatever criteria that they choose that doesn’t take race into account then I may not totally agree with that process but I won’t say it’s illegal or overly unfair but I simply don’t think this is the case. So we’ll see how the suit plays out.
     
  20. Bargey

    Bargey Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    9,887
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    Btw when i say “ doesn’t take race into account” I mean unofficially as well as officially.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.