# Affirmative Action, college and Asians



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Daniel Golden's ,"The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way Into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates," speaks about how White benefit from a type of affirmative action to get accepted at some of or better colleges ahead of Asians. This and other articles speak about Blacks and Hispanics benefit from affirmative action to displaced qualified Asians. While I do believe affirmative action is due Black Americans (not in the way its implemented now) I say take away all the controls in regards to college and accept students according to merit. The Asians haven't benefited from widespread suppression of other groups so why should they punished for being successful, they are a superb example of success according to merit. In the U.S there shouldn't such a thing as too successful.

"WHEN Jonathan Hu was going to high school in suburban Southern California, he rarely heard anyone speaking Chinese. But striding through campus on his way to class at the University of California, Berkeley, Mr. Hu hears Mandarin all the time, in plazas, cafeterias, classrooms, study halls, dorms and fast-food outlets. It is part of the soundtrack at this iconic university, along with Cantonese, English, Spanish and, of course, the perpetual jackhammers from the perpetual construction projects spurred by the perpetual fund drives. ......."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Asians have long been the most discriminated group in the US and are currently still the only minority group it is "okay" to discriminate against. I have raised the issue before on this board that even though they represent the smallest minority in the US, they actually do not qualify as an AA admittance to any medical, business, or law school that I know of. I no longer have the citation, but there was a study done in California prior to the change in the AA laws there, and Asians had to score immensely higher than any other ethnic group for college admittance, due to the fact the "races" were each put into seperate pools. This article verifies this information also.

It is important we try to integrate all peoples into our modern and prosperous society that are legal residents in the US. I think we should base help more on socio-economic status than race, as believe it or not, there are poor "whites" that could use a hand too. Also, by college admission time, the damage is done. Setting people up to fail, by admitting them into a competative pool far above their abilities, helps no one. The time to start equalizing things is in pre-school.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that the schooling should be equal for everyone and vastly improved in the large cities. 

(Break up the teachers union!!!)

Then, affirmative action should not be necessary. It is a waste of everyone's time and money to send unprepared people to college.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> (Break up the teachers union!!!)
> .


You got it in one!:icon_cheers:


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I think we should base help more on socio-economic status than race, as believe it or not, there are poor "whites" that could use a hand too.


The article does say that Princeton gives weight to whether an applicant would be the first in a family to attend college.

There is no easy answer to this issue. At odds are the instinct to be completely fair, yet achieve a diversity that enriches all students. At least I feel that having diverse classmates enriched me.

I spent my freshman year at Vassar, a highly selective college that probably had lower admissions standards for men during the 1970s when the college was seeking to become more fully coeducational. Was a more qualified woman denied admission while I was accepted? Probably, but for the same reason, she likely would have faced lower odds at Williams or Amherst than I would have. I applied early decision partly because I believed that because of my gender I had a better chance of being accepted and likely would receive a more generous financial-aid package than I'd have been offered elsewhere.



Wayfarer said:


> Setting people up to fail, by admitting them into a competative pool far above their abilities, helps no one.


My understanding is that under Affirmative Action, elite schools are not admitting unqualified applicants, just less qualified applicants. Elite schools reject thousands of applicants who likely could succeed there, and it was that way long before Affirmative Action came into being. There always was more to the process than grades and test scores.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> At least I feel that having diverse classmates enriched me.


Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Different Asians*

My wife is Thai on her mother's side. When she went to college there was of course no affirmative action in place for her, not that she needed it with her grades and test scores (there has to be one set of brains in every marriage). That said it was pointed out to her then by the admissions counselors that the reason there was no AA porgram for her was that all Asians are lumped together. As it turns out, when divided into sub-groups, not all Asians are academicaly equal. My mother, who spent 30 years working for the Federal Dept. of Education, has also pointed this out to us. The D o E actually looked at doing something about this, but decided it would be too difficult sorting out which Asians deserved/needed AA, and which did not.

On a lighter note, I have noticed that most of my Asian cousins-by-marriage could use a different type of AA (Ask Andy).
:devil:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Can you elaborate on this?


I believe he means, as I do, that going to school with people from diverse backgrounds enriches the college experience. I had a roommate from Sri Lanka. I learned much about his family background, and his faith in Buddhism. I also had many other friends from foreign countries, thus exposing me to cultures I had not experienced coming from a mostly white suburb.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

New immigrant Asians and Asian Americans in general are often ignored in any talks of national policy. And as this thread demonstrates, outright discriminated against when it comes to affirmative action. 

A large part of the problem, in my opinion, is that they are perceived as "foreigners". Let me clarify this point.

Even if an Asian-American has roots in the US over hundreds of years, the facial features are distinctive. This cannot be changed. People of European descent can blend into the rest of society. Black Americans are Americans, and even Hispanics, can eventually "assimilate". The distinct racial features of the "Asians" means that in the US, they will always be considered "not us".

In about 20 years when China dominates the world in both military might, spheres of influence, and certainly economy, maybe more non-Asian Americans will want to be "Asian"


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JP

how would you like to see afirmative action?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Schools*

Gentlemen,

Good point Laxplayer. It does make for a more diverse experience for the student.
I believe, merit alone should be the cutoff, but most all kids have 1600 SAT scores now.
The competition is keen now. Most of the elites do work hard to get the kids of alumni in.
My son got into Duke also. He had impeccable grades, and scores as well.
Valedictorian, SAT in 1500 range.
I was told, that the school, is very accepting of alumni kids. This appears to be the case for me. Mind you, merit is what they look at first, if an alumni child, this does carry weight.
Do I think this is fair. No, gentlemen.
Simply put, it deprives someone else, that deserves this.
I think the best grades, record a student has, should be the deciding point.
I think colleges, are going too far with foreign students.
Admitting too many, and the hiring of foreign professors.
This is my own opinion. 
I feel schools should key in on students, who are american citizens. Nothing else. We, already have a diverse country. I am sure, we can find them here as well.

My friends, nice day


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

*Socio Economic Status*

Well Stated Wayfarer!!

I've always believed it should be based on socio economic status and not race. There are a lot of "poor everybody" out there that need help. The rich have access to top schools, tutors etc etc that can help their kids when they are having trouble.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> I believe he means, as I do, that going to school with people from diverse backgrounds enriches the college experience. I had a roommate from Sri Lanka. I learned much about his family background, and his faith in Buddhism. I also had many other friends from foreign countries, thus exposing me to cultures I had not experienced coming from a mostly white suburb.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Speaking as a graduate of two elite schools, I don't hesitate to say that it isn't as simple as just admitting the most qualified applicants. 

First, the measures we have for qualifications are not infallible, even at measuring what they do purport to measure. For instance, the combination of LSAT and undergraduate GPA is the best predictor of first year law school grades. That's not nothing, but it's a far cry from predicting who is likely to be a good lawyer.

Second, there are elite universities that could fill their entire freshman class with people who got 1600's (2400 now) on the SAT, and they choose not to do so. Why? Because they've figured out that it won't get them the best quality students or student body. To put it another way, they have learned that there are other significant measures of what will make a good student.

Third, I don't think that replacing race-based affirmative action with class-based affirmative action will have the effect of providing adequate educational opportunities for racial minorities. When I was in law school the dean of our school wrote the amicus curiae brief for the American Association of Law Schools in the Bakke case. One of the things they pointed out was that substituting socioeconomic status for race would have the effect of radically reducing the number of black students accepted (I think they were specifically talking about law school admissions, but it's so long ago I really don't remember). You can differ about whether this is good or bad, but it's important to realize that we aren't talking about two roughly equivalent solutions here.

Fourth, undergraduate and postgraduate admission decisions are a mechanism to allocate scarce societal resources, not simply to do something nice for the students who are accepted, but to accomplish important societal goals of educating people to fill the ranks of the professionals and educated people of the country. I have no trouble concluding that the needs of our country require that we increase the numbers of blacks and other minorities in those ranks.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Good point Laxplayer. It does make for a more diverse experience for the student.
> I believe, merit alone should be the cutoff, but most all kids have 1600 SAT scores now.
> ...


Just for clarity, my roommate was a citizen. His parents came to the U.S. from Sri Lanka, and he was born shortly after. I do agree though that there are many deserving students of diverse backgrounds already living in the U.S.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> Most of the elites do work hard to get the kids of alumni in.


Yes, they are called "legacies." It's always been that way, too. Certainly GWB did not get into Yale solely on merit. For that matter, Bill Clinton likely benefitted from the geographical diversity that most elite colleges seek -- hmmm, here's an applicant from _Arkansas,_ we don't have one of those!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> My understanding is that under Affirmative Action, elite schools are not admitting unqualified applicants, just less qualified applicants. Elite schools reject thousands of applicants who likely could succeed there, and it was that way long before Affirmative Action came into being. There always was more to the process than grades and test scores.


crs, do you have some data to support your claims? Maybe drop out rates, aggregate and broken out by race for a few schools? I do not have citation to hand, but why not concentrate on a pretty good school we both know, the U of Arizona. Or maybe look up Wayne State in Detroit, check out people earning all their credits yet being unable to pass a very simple basic math and English requirement exam (hint: those failing the English portion were born in Michigan, not a non-English speaking country).

I am willing to bet Thomas Sowell might be a good source to gather citations from.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is directed somewhat towards Jack's comments:

Affirmative Action based on being a racial minority lost 100% of its credibility when Asians a) did not qualify or b) ended up having to have higher grades and test scores than others to get admitted. Either "minority" means you belong to an ethnic group that is a small fraction of the whole or we are now trying to define the word "is" Clinton style. The liberals realized this and now use the term "under represented minority" because HEAVEN FORBID your ethnic group should break the liberal paradigm of non-white people under-achieving on an aggregate level. 

Liberals talk of "fairness". What could be better than basing any help on socio-economic status? Let us face it, money cures all ills in this society. I fail to see why the child of a Colin Powell, Condi Rice, or Russell Simons would need affirmative action. Again I go back to it being too late by college admissions, the formative years is when to start educational help.

Lastly, let us look to college athletics. Should all basketball teams "look like America" and only have 17% blacks? Or is merit a good thing there suddenly?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, do you have some data to support your claims? Maybe drop out rates, aggregate and broken out by race for a few schools? I do not have citation to hand, but why not concentrate on a pretty good school we both know, the U of Arizona. Or maybe look up Wayne State in Detroit, check out people earning all their credits yet being unable to pass a very simple basic math and English requirement exam (hint: those failing the English portion were born in Michigan, not a non-English speaking country).
> 
> I am willing to bet Thomas Sowell might be a good source to gather citations from.


I said "elite" schools, and the article focused on them as well. I would not consider UA or Wayne State remotely in that category. Certainly both attract some bright students, but neither are among the most selective schools in the country.

At a school like Princeton, we are talking about SAT scores maybe 100-200 points below the school's norm -- still very bright kids. They are not filling quotas with people who can't read.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I said "elite" schools, and the article focused on them as well. I would not consider UA or Wayne State remotely in that category. Certainly both attract some bright students, but neither are among the most selective schools in the country.
> 
> At a school like Princeton, we are talking about SAT scores maybe 100-200 points below the school's norm -- still very bright kids. They are not filling quotas with people who can't read.


I agree with you neither are elite schools, I was trying to pitch you a softball. Okay then, to avoid further side stepping, please provide some data, aggregate and broken out by race, to support your assertions. To make things clear, your assertion was:



crs said:


> My understanding is that under Affirmative Action, elite schools are not admitting unqualified applicants...


One could assume then that drop out rates for those subject to AA would be no higher than those not subject to AA. Why not provide a few citations? You could easily prove yourself correct for all to see.

Lastly, as most post-secondary education occurs in schools that are not elite, by definition, should we also not be concerned with all schools? It would be both elitest and illogical just to worry about the elites.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*CRS*

Gentlemen

CRS, I know they are called legacies. Again, one could argue both sides of this.
I did say above, I felt this was wrong, not fair. I did it on merit, and the GI bill.
My son did it on merit, in my opinion.
Did it help that I went to Duke too. I think so.
I look at what I have done, and feel differently going forward.
Again I believe that schools should do it on merit. Keep the federal government out of it.
Laxplayer, am a big fan of diversity.
You can not get a more diverse group, than the military.
Does it make a difference. I think it might, but not in an academic sense anyway.
This is a tough one gentlemen, a lot of feelings about this one. Especially us BOOMERS!!!
Nice day my friend


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

An interesting note. This might just be by ommission, but I cannot believe no one has questioned my statement in the second post on this thread that it is still "okay" to discriminate against Asians. Now that I have drawn attention to it, there might well be some disclaiming. Very telling to note though that that did not raise a single eye brow up to this point.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I fail to see why the child of a Colin Powell, Condi Rice, or Russell Simons would need affirmative action.


They don't need it, WE need it - at least according to the replies on this board. According to those who argue that we benefit from diverse cultures in the class room, it makes no difference if they are wealthy or not.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> An interesting note. This might just be by ommission, but I cannot believe no one has questioned my statement in the second post on this thread that it is still "okay" to discriminate against Asians. Now that I have drawn attention to it, there might well be some disclaiming. Very telling to note though that that did not raise a single eye brow up to this point.


Are they underrepresented in the classroom? If they are not, that explains why others have no problem with it.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I believe he means, as I do, that going to school with people from diverse backgrounds enriches the college experience. I had a roommate from Sri Lanka. I learned much about his family background, and his faith in Buddhism. I also had many other friends from foreign countries, thus exposing me to cultures I had not experienced coming from a mostly white suburb.


Are you better at your profession because of that experience?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> They don't need it, WE need it - at least according to the replies on this board. According to those who argue that *we benefit from diverse cultures in the class room*, it makes no difference if they are wealthy or not.


Suppressed premise: "white" is white. Monolithic. A 10th generation US anglo is just the same as a first generation from the Bosnia. There's racism IMO.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I agree with you neither are elite schools, I was trying to pitch you a softball. Okay then, to avoid further side stepping, please provide some data, aggregate and broken out by race, to support your assertions. To make things clear, your assertion was:
> 
> One could assume then that drop out rates for those subject to AA would be no higher than those not subject to AA. Why not provide a few citations? You could easily prove yourself correct for all to see.
> 
> Lastly, as most post-secondary education occurs in schools that are not elite, by definition, should we also not be concerned with all schools? It would be both elitest and illogical just to worry about the elites.


The Daily Princetonian's story on the case cited in the NYT's story says the data is unclear. Some of the comments from Princeton's Asian students are interesting:

You may be interested in expanding the discussion to all schools, but I am not. At issue in the article were the nation's most selective universities. Anyone who has applied to such schools can tell you the admissions process is entirely different -- and personal -- than going by the numbers. At most of them, a personal interview is almost essential. It is not a matter of feeding data into a computer and letting a machine pick the student body. And again, it never was -- long before Affirmative Action.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Wayfarer*

Gentlemen

Wayfarer, you are on a roll. Very, very great point.
I love your point about racism, in whites as well. And this has become just that gentlemen.
Some schools, have lessened their standards, to do just this, gentlemen.
Not just the elites, or the U of Ark, but a great deal many of them.
My kids are beyond this era, than God!
I dred going forward from here. Say, the next 10 years.
My friends, enjoy your day.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Lastly, let us look to college athletics. Should all basketball teams "look like America" and only have 17% blacks? Or is merit a good thing there suddenly?


As an average-height white guy, I am an under-represented minority in the NBA. For the 2007-2008 season, the minimum salary for an NBA player with no previous NBA experience will be $427,163. I'll play for the league minimum in the name of racial and vertical diversity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs:

I am not trying to troll here, this is an honest statement.

For a guy that goes on and on and on about how a journalist will not print something unless they have reams of supporting documentation, and even if they did try, the ever scanning editor would not allow it, I can not fathom why you are so loathe to post some citations for your claims. Prove yourself correct and post three or four good solid citations that drop out rates amongst those admitted to elite schools under affirmative action are equal to or less than their counterparts and that their academic performance, once admitted, is equal to or superior. Here's your chance to prove yourself correct and show us all those journalist's ethics!


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I personally see Asians as the least discriminated against "minority" group in this country, hence the term model minority. I rarely hear organizations plotting their demise. Hell even White supremacist like Asians. I visit a couple of them for jollies sometimes and there is a population who accept intermarriage between the two groups. They are certainly the most assimilated among the minority groups.

Globetrotter, I can't say I have an cohesive plan for what would be a proper way to implement AA/ reparations and the like. But it would have to focus on the young, and begin in their formative years, aside from that I'm stumped. We gain nothing sending Blacks to UCLA if they belong in Community College. Of course as someone pointed out at many schools its very hard to determine who is being left out because of affirmative action.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs:
> 
> I am not trying to troll here, this is an honest statement.
> 
> For a guy that goes on and on and on about how a journalist will not print something unless they have reams of supporting documentation, and even if they did try, the ever scanning editor would not allow it, I can not fathom why you are so loathe to post some citations for your claims. Prove yourself correct and post three or four good solid citations that drop out rates amongst those admitted to elite schools under affirmative action are equal to or less than their counterparts and that their academic performance, once admitted, is equal to or superior. Here's your chance to prove yourself correct and show us all those journalist's ethics!


I can't imagine why he would need to document such a thing. Your telling me you believe there are kids with SAT scores around 900 and C- grades being accepted into Yale because of affirmative action? Even they did less well than the general population while at University that wouldn't make them unqualified, it would make them less qualified at best.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Globetrotter, I can't say I have an cohesive plan for what would be a proper way to implement AA/ reparations and the like. But it would have to focus on the young, and begin in their formative years, aside from that I'm stumped. We gain nothing sending Blacks to UCLA if they belong in Community College. Of course as someone pointed out at many schools its very hard to determine who is being left out because of affirmative action.


actually, I would be all in favor of that kind of thing, but who the hell knows how to build a working system. try to identify kids (say, under 10) that weren't getting good breakfasts at home, that didn't have role models in the workforce, that didn't speak clear English, and give them support to bring them up to speed. I would be willing to ear mark some of my tax dollars for that.

from an outsiders point of view, I think that the black/white divide in the US is going to be one of th causes of the downfall of the states. it may take a few generations, but it is a huge danger.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> I can't imagine why he would need to document such a thing. *Your (sic) telling em you believe there are kids with SAT score around 900 and C- grades being accepted into Yale because of affirmative action?* Even they did less well than the general population while at school that wouldn't make them unqualified, it would make them less qualified at best.


No jpeirpoint, no such thing. He made the assertion elite schools are not admitting underqualified candidates. In debate, when one makes an assertion, it is incumbent on them to provide data. He mght well be correct and could demonstrate this by showing grades and drop out rates are similar to or superior amongst blacks and hispanics.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No jpeirpoint, no such thing. He made the assertion elite schools are not admitting underqualified candidates. In debate, when one makes an assertion, it is incumbent on them to provide data. He mght well be correct and could demonstrate this by showing grades and drop out rates are similar to or superior amongst blacks and hispanics.


I'd agree with you if he did say under-qualified, they could be. But he said unqualified, I think that's a more than reasonable assertion, reasonable enough where he doesn't have to dig through the crates.
Also thanks for quoting me before I got a chance to finish editing me post.....grrrr


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I am firmly against affirmative action. Merit may not be infallible, but then neither is any other method or selection preference mechanism.

I also dislike to see governments or schools practicing social engineering.

I see no good reason to deny a better qualified student in favor of one who (through their uniqueness) will hopefully enhance the experience of fellow students they might encounter. This hope is not sufficient reason to deny entrance to a better qualified student.

If diversity is such an important goal, why not mandate diversity in all areas, instead of just ethnicity/race? Mandate that each school has to admit more fairly equitable numbers of liberal/conservative, poor/rich, intelligent/less intelligent, northern/southern, foreign/native.

Wouldn't we all be so much better for the exposure to elements that we might otherwise never (or, at least, not "enough") experience?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs:
> 
> I am not trying to troll here, this is an honest statement.
> 
> For a guy that goes on and on and on about how a journalist will not print something unless they have reams of supporting documentation, and even if they did try, the ever scanning editor would not allow it, I can not fathom why you are so loathe to post some citations for your claims. Prove yourself correct and post three or four good solid citations that drop out rates amongst those admitted to elite schools under affirmative action are equal to or less than their counterparts and that their academic performance, once admitted, is equal to or superior. Here's your chance to prove yourself correct and show us all those journalist's ethics!


College admissions at elite colleges have always been extremely subjective. You are trying to quantify something that defies it. If you talked to admissions people at elite schools, they would tell you that what they do is more art than science. I understand your need to try to apply statistics to this, but you are wrong. Princeton, for instance, _does not accept transfer students._ Therefore the assumption is that almost everyone who is admitted will stay there, thus the dropout rate would be so small as to be irrelevant to your point. I am not trying to be a troll, either, but you are beginning with a faulty set of assumptions. I do not believe statistics related to elite schools are obtainable or especially relevant. In short, I think your faulty assumptions are based on a lack of knowledge of how such schools have traditionally selected their student bodies, long before they even tried to practice diversity. I do not accept your premise and you cannot goad me into accepting it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No jpeirpoint, no such thing. He made the assertion elite schools are not admitting underqualified candidates.


No, I said they are not admitting unqualified candidates. Big difference.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> No, I said they are not admitting unqualified candidates. Big difference.


So stop the verbal sparring and prove it.

Sorry for the mistype, I had meant to quote you but got a phone call. Work does intrude.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rkipperman said:


> They don't need it, WE need it - at least according to the replies on this board. According to those who argue that we benefit from diverse cultures in the class room, it makes no difference if they are wealthy or not.


Are we talking about affirmative action for race or for culture? Your comments and those of others conflate the two. Do we think race and culture are identical? Of course wealth/income matters - Does a hispanic kid who has a lawyer for a mother and a doctor for a father, went to private boarding schools, took winter breaks in Switzerland, and summered at the Vineyard really bring a "culture" with him significantly different from an upper class white kid of English/German descent? I would suggest that there is a far greater "culture" gap between people of different economic backgrounds than there is between people of different races who are in the same income bracket.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I am not trying to be a troll, either, but you are beginning with a faulty set of assumptions. I do not believe statistics related to elite schools are obtainable or especially relevant. In short, I think your faulty assumptions are based on a lack of knowledge of how such schools have traditionally selected their student bodies, long before they even tried to practice diversity. I do not accept your premise and you cannot goad me into accepting it.


You are wrong. I have made *no assumptions and have no premise*. You made an assertion. I was trying to provide you with some metrics I thought might help prove it. Feel free to ignore my suggested metrics and provide your own. If an assertion is made and it is unprovable, it is worthless. Futher, why do you keep thinking I have no experience with the admitting process to the Ivy League? FYI, I was accepted at the one b-school in the League I applied to. And also FYI, the process, including interview, was exactly the same as at the two here in Arizona.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> You got it in one!


Agreed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Maybe we should see what we all can agree on?

Does everyone accept that college entry is the wrong time and that it would be best to get everyone on the right educational track at the pre-school or K level?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Are you better at your profession because of that experience?


Better? Do I give better financial advice because I was exposed to people of diverse backgrounds in college? I don't think so. 
I enjoyed my time in college for the same reasons I enjoy traveling. I like to meet new people and learn about new cultures, some from the US and some from other countries. 
The world is a classroom, never stop learning.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Maybe we should see what we all can agree on?
> 
> Does everyone accept that college entry is the wrong time and that it would be best to get everyone on the right educational track at the pre-school or K level?


Wayfarer - I'm not sure that's relevant so far in this discussion. I don't think anyone was defending affirmative action on the basis that it ameliorates past educational deficiency. In fact, CRS was arguing just the opposite - that the educational deficiencies in any given affirmative action candidate to an "elite" institution were negligible, i.e., people admitted are all qualified. The defenses for affirmative action have been couched in terms of the benefits of diversity and the need to ensure that minority groups gained entry into certain professions - though, as you point out, in the case of Asians - not too many of them (lest they be over-represented).


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Fourth, undergraduate and postgraduate admission decisions are a mechanism to allocate scarce societal resources, not simply to do something nice for the students who are accepted, but to accomplish important societal goals of educating people to fill the ranks of the professionals and educated people of the country. I have no trouble concluding that the needs of our country require that we increase the numbers of blacks and other minorities in those ranks.


My important social goal when going in for surgery is to have the absolute best and most qualified surgeon I can find - your social engineering desires are just swell when talking about "soft" professions like law. When lives are on the line such as in medicine, sciences, engineering, etc., I want those positions filled with the best and brightest regardless of race; decisions based on merit - not your social vision.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Wayfarer - I'm not sure that's relevant so far in this discussion. I don't think anyone was defending affirmative action on the basis that it ameliorates past educational deficiency. In fact, CRS was arguing just the opposite - that the educational deficiencies in any given affirmative action candidate to an "elite" institution were negligible, i.e., people admitted are all qualified. The defenses for affirmative action have been couched in terms of the benefits of diversity and the need to ensure that minority groups gained entry into certain professions - though, as you point out, in the case of Asians - not too many of them (lest they be over-represented).


You know, that turns on the light for me. I now realize it does not even matter if the AA beneficiary graduates, the benefit society is deriving is from the poor "culture" and "diversity" starved "white" students getting this great cosmopolitan experience in the classroom. If the argument of the liberal is we all benefit from "diversity" in the classroom, then actually graduating people is at best a secondary objective, is it not?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rocker said:


> My important social goal when going in for surgery is to have the absolute best and most qualified surgeon I can find - your social engineering desires are just swell when talking about "soft" professions like law. When lives are on the line such as in medicine, sciences, engineering, etc., I want those positions filled with the best and brightest regardless of race; decisions based on merit - not your social vision.


True enough, I want the best surgeon, too, even if he or she happens to be not quite as good at calculus as the person who beats them out of a slot at med school. (You may know doctors who routinely use calculus in their medical practices, but the doctors I talk to say they don't.) I also want to have a doctor who can communicate effectively with me, and I want our society to have doctors who will understand the cultural backgrounds of their patients, even if those patients are not from the white, well-educated families that most doctors come from, and I want our society to have doctors who are willing to serve minority communities. All of this leads me to conclude that, while not the only consideration, race is a valid consideration in making some of these decisions.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> True enough, I want the best surgeon, too, even if he or she happens to be not quite as good at calculus as the person who beats them out of a slot at med school. (You may know doctors who routinely use calculus in their medical practices, but the doctors I talk to say they don't.) I also want to have a doctor who can communicate effectively with me, and I want our society to have doctors who will understand the cultural backgrounds of their patients*, even if those patients are not from the white, well-educated families that most doctors come from,* and I want our society to have doctors who are willing to serve minority communities. All of this leads me to conclude that, while not the only consideration, race is a valid consideration in making some of these decisions.


Okay, I just have to go find some demographics here, but working in healthcare as I do, I can sure as hell tell you it seems unlikely that most students in medical school today are from "white" families and if they are, there is a greater than 50% liklihood they are female (I am sure Jack just forgot to toss in gender, a little passive sexism on his part, assuming they're male).

I am willing to bet that if you counted all doctors currently holding medical licenses, the majority are still white and male. I do not think all these white male doctors came from "well-educated" families however. Also, I think if you stratified by age, say all licensed physician's under 40 years of age, you would find the majority are *not* white and male. In fact, I would not be surprised to find about 35-40% of this group were not even born in the US. So would your communication parameter hold then Jack, i.e. physician cannot communicate well in English?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

crs said:


> No, I said they are not admitting unqualified candidates. Big difference.


From personal experience, I can say that when I was at university I tutored students who had been admitted under AA who were definitely not qualified academically to be at any university. They were nice people, and they tried hard, but they did not have the basic language skills to succeed at a university where even math classes had a writing requirement.

I know that many people would accuse me of prejudice (or worse) for being a white male who believes that only the objective criteria of grades and test scores should be used to determine university admission. Oddly, my black step father (not African American, call him that and be prepared for an amazing lecture) also agrees that admitting people to academic posts for which they are unqualified only sets them up for failure.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> There is no easy answer to this issue.


I disagree, crs. It is really very simple. There should be ZERO government interference into matters of private college admissions. It violates the basic principles of property and freedom of association (remember that one?).

If you or any other supporter of a racially-based admissions policy were, for example, actually on the Board of Regents of a university, then a discussion of the merits of racial diversity might be relevant. To the extent you offered such a thing, it would be one factor of many that your school would use to attract students, particularly those who rank racial diversity highly on their list of priorities.

Otherwise, you are not really talking about sound and proper admissions policies. You are talking about how you want to FORCE other people to run THEIR organizations as YOU want them to.

Not really the same thing.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> True enough, I want the best surgeon, too, even if he or she happens to be not quite as good at calculus as the person who beats them out of a slot at med school. (You may know doctors who routinely use calculus in their medical practices, but the doctors I talk to say they don't.) I also want to have a doctor who can communicate effectively with me, and I want our society to have doctors who will understand the cultural backgrounds of their patients, even if those patients are not from the white, well-educated families that most doctors come from, and I want our society to have doctors who are willing to serve minority communities. All of this leads me to conclude that, while not the only consideration, race is a valid consideration in making some of these decisions.


With that in mind, would it be OK for a predominantly "white," upper class community to only hire white doctors because they were better able to communicate with their patients, better understood the cultural backgrounds of their patients, and were better able to assimilate into and serve the community and make their patients feel at ease?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Racial Makeup of the Current U-M Student Body

*Fall Term 2002, Ann Arbor campus

Law School (J.D. students):
Underrepresented minorities - 12.5%
African-American - 6.7%
Hispanic-American - 4.4%
Native American - 1.4%

Note: Asian Americans are not classified as underrepresented minorities.*

This is available at:

This article also links to the U of M fight to keep racial profiling for admissions (my new term for it!). So one of the premier law and med schools does not treat Asians as minorities. There is part of my very basic argument against racial profiling for admissions, there is discrimination by the institution even against minorities.

Edit: I had to edit formatting.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Wayfarer*

Wyfarer,
I applaud your point about the the under 40 physician, in this country.
They are not from here, probably because of AA.
This has created a problem in healthcare today.
Does my doctor understand me, or vice versa.
This is a big problem in the VA system.
There are places, they cut back on their credential process, to accomodate foreign medical MD.
A lot of states, government facilities and many more do this.
This has caused a great deal of heartache in the system.
This, is not because of AA in many cases. This is due to allowing many foreign grads here.

Globetrotter, you are on the money my friend. A few generations, things may get nasty. Very good point, thank you for sharing.
I thought I was alone here.
This topic is too hot!
I am going to have a drink!
Airborne!


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

agnash said:


> From personal experience, I can say that when I was at university I tutored students who had been admitted under AA who were definitely not qualified academically to be at any university. They were nice people, and they tried hard, but they did not have the basic language skills to succeed at a university where even math classes had a writing requirement.
> 
> I know that many people would accuse me of prejudice (or worse) for being a white male who believes that only the objective criteria of grades and test scores should be used to determine university admission. Oddly, my black step father (not African American, call him that and be prepared for an amazing lecture) also agrees that admitting people to academic posts for which they are unqualified only sets them up for failure.


You tutored at Yale, Princton, Harvard?


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Better? Do I give better financial advice because I was exposed to people of diverse backgrounds in college? I don't think so.
> I enjoyed my time in college for the same reasons I enjoy traveling. I like to meet new people and learn about new cultures, some from the US and some from other countries.
> The world is a classroom, never stop learning.


Is that benefit worthy of passing over other more qualified candidates?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Racial Makeup of the Current U-M Student Body
> 
> *Fall Term 2002, Ann Arbor campus
> 
> ...


No just there:

"A recent MSNBC news headline announced a "Plunge in Minority University Enrollment" at the University of California, with UC Berkeley reporting that "minority admissions had declined 61 percent." Actually, the total percentage of racial minority students at Berkeley, Asians included, fell from 57% to 49%. If you exclude the burgeoning group of people who decline to state their race, the minority percentage fell only three percentage points, from 61% to 58%.

The drop was exclusively among blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. Asians, who make up less than 10% of the California population, apparently aren't a "minority."

Source:
https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You will need a Sage Journal membership to read this but:



> 22% of the physicians in the United. States are foreign born and foreign educated.


at: https://ppn.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/3_suppl/66S

Now that is both born and educated outside the US, we already have 22% of the physician workforce accounted for. Now add in 1st generation immigrants educated in the US and foriegn born educated in the US and one can see that the physician workforce is indeed highly skewed against "white" membership.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I disagree, crs. It is really very simple. There should be ZERO government interference into matters of private college admissions. It violates the basic principles of property and freedom of association (remember that one?).
> 
> If you or any other supporter of a racially-based admissions policy were, for example, actually on the Board of Regents of a university, then a discussion of the merits of racial diversity might be relevant. To the extent you offered such a thing, it would be one factor of many that your school would use to attract students, particularly those who rank racial diversity highly on their list of priorities.
> 
> ...


I think the admissions people at Princeton would agree with you. They are arguing that _they_ should decide which applicants to admit. The person suing Princeton is asking the courts to decide which students Princeton should admit. We are on the same page here, I think.

One thing people like Wayfarer (and the student who is suing Princeton) seem unable to accept is that the school does not make its decision solely on test scores and grades; it does not say, "Everyone with SATs over 700 in each section will be admitted." A student with a 600 is still a pretty bright kid, capable of handling Princeton academics, and if he has something unusual to offer the school, that is considered.

A college operating rigidly could have looked at my application and said, "This kid was ranked ninth in his class as a junior and is now 30th. We're not taking him." The college to which I applied, however, noted that the high school senior maintained respectable grades while taking advanced classes and writing 24-30 hours a week for a professional daily newspaper, a significant handicap compared with someone who has nothing else to do but study and party. Elite colleges do make these allowances -- does the student show potential despite attending a bad school, would he be the first from his family to attend college, does this student's special talent help the university raise the bar for existing students in some area (the band, the student newspaper, an athletic team)?

Elite colleges that seek a national and international student body have quotas that have nothing to do with race, as well. An applicant from Alaska will have an edge over an equally qualified applicant from New Jersey at Princeton. As a high school student I well understood that my residency in New Jersey would hurt me rather than help me with a school like Princeton. These quotas exist not because an elite college believes Alaskans get a raw deal, but because it helps the college achieve its goal of having a diverse student body where students of vastly different backgrounds provide as much intellectual stimulation for each other as the professors do for the students. Do some qualified applicants get a raw deal? Sure. But that would happen even if Princeton limited its enrollment to only white males and only white males applied. It never had room for all the qualified applicants, even before Affirmative Action.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> I think the admissions people at Princeton would agree with you. They are arguing that _they_ should decide which applicants to admit. The person suing Princeton is asking the courts to decide which students Princeton should admit. We are on the same page here, I think.
> 
> One thing people like Wayfarer (and the student who is suing Princeton) seem unable to accept is that the school does not make its decision solely on test scores and grades; it does not say, "Everyone with SATs over 700 in each section will be admitted." A student with a 600 is still a pretty bright kid, capable of handling Princeton academics, and if he has something unusual to offer the school, that is considered.
> 
> ...


Odd that SATs and ACTs were largely adopted after WWII for admissions standards in an effort to reduce the subjectivity of the admissions process and to break up the Old Boy Network in place at "elite" institutions (i.e., good scores could get you in even if you didn't go to the right prep school or your daddy was an alum). The problem with the old SATs wasn't that they weren't relatively good predictors of academic success, it was that they didn't produce the results desired by those who know what's best for us.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Odd, that SATs and ACTs were largely adopted after WWII for admissions standards in an effort to reduce the subjectivity of the admissions process and to break up the Old Boy Network in place at "elite" institutions. The problem with the old SATs wasn't that they weren't relatively good predictors of academic success, it was that they didn't produce the results desired by those who know what's best for us.


I thought that the standardized tests were more a result of colleges being swamped with applicants because of the G.I. Bill.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> One thing people like Wayfarer ...


Always makes my day when you say something like that crs :icon_cheers:

Being that you have stated your assertion is unprovable and you can provide no data (hence meaningless for debate's sake), you are pretty ballsy referring to me like that to someone else, avoiding having to deal with that fact I have you skewered once again on the spear of my logic.
Lastly, if you were actually paying attention, you would see I clearly indicated I felt at least one non-academic criteria should be used. However, as usual, as I will not march in lock step with the gods of PC, you are disparaging me. Nice to see some things never change.

Cheers


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> I thought that the standardized tests were more a result of colleges being swamped with applicants because of the G.I. Bill.


Maybe - this argues not (see here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html) - either way schools were looking for an objective way to measure student ability.

Now some want subjectivity in order for some to shape society as they desire it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Being that you have stated your assertion is unprovable and you can provide no data (hence meaningless for debate's sake


Having attended an elite college (and you didn't), I know firsthand that the college did not accept people who were unqualified to be there. Some had tests scores a bit below the school's norm, but they were bright kids and handled the workload.

That's the basis of my assertion, personal experience. I attended class with them, and a senior from the Newark ghetto was my advisor (all freshmen had an advisor).

As I say, I think you're way off base demanding "statistics." I doubt the elite schools keep such statistics. They are irrelevant to the schools in question and to this discussion because the elite schools weigh applications more individually than other schools do.

I was trying to be nice, but it seems that you have no idea how these schools operate. They operate like the real world -- in which job openings are not filled entirely on the basis of one's on-paper qualifications but on more subjective things. The student who is suing Princeton is going to learn some hard lessons in a few years, when prospective employers ask, "Aren't you the butthole who sued Princeton because you didn't get in?"

"Skewered" me? Oh, get over yourself. You're an intelligent guy but clearly unqualified in this area. That's OK, you have plenty to offer on other topics, yadda yadda, but you are in over your head here. Accept it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> Is that benefit worthy of passing over other more qualified candidates?


I never said anything about passing over qualified candidates. I was answering a question as to why I felt my college experience was enriched by being exposed to a diverse makeup of students.

btw, I don't buy into the idea of "elite schools" being so much better than other colleges. I also didn't have any problem at all getting into college. I went to the University of Illinois and had a well paying job in finance just two months after graduation. Would I have done much better if I had gone to an Ivy or another elite school? I really doubt it. I also have a friend who graduated from Southern Illinois School of Medicine. Now in her current job as an orthopaedic surgeon, I doubt she feels bad that she was turned down by several top schools.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> btw, I don't buy into the idea of "elite schools" being so much better than other colleges. I also didn't have any problem at all getting into college. I went to the University of Illinois and had a well paying job in finance just two months after graduation. Would I have done much better if I had gone to an Ivy or another elite school? I really doubt it. I also have a friend who graduated from Southern Illinois School of Medicine. Now in her current job as an orthopaedic surgeon, I doubt she feels bad that she was turned down by several top schools.


I agree with you about the end result. Great public universities always attract their share of the brightest because of the cost in-state and because they tend to be huge and offer any kind of classes you could possibly want. However, when the topic is admissions, the elite schools are just different. People obsess about getting in because of the prestige factor. Also, when talking about Princeton specifically, it is super-attractive to smart kids who need scholarship money because there are no student loans required of scholarship students at Princeton. I repeat: _No student loans required of scholarship students at Princeton._ If you can get in, the school will see to it that you get the money, with no loan hanging over your head upon graduation. That ups the ante a bit.

Edit: Loans are not part of the financial aid package. However, loans are available if a student fails to earn the budgeted amount through summer employment, and non-scholarship parents can take out loans:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Having attended an elite college (and you didn't), I know firsthand that the college did not accept people who were unqualified to be there. Some had tests scores a bit below the school's norm, but they were bright kids and handled the workload.
> 
> *That's the basis of my assertion, personal experience. *I attended class with them, and a senior from the Newark ghetto was my advisor (all freshmen had an advisor).
> 
> ...


LOLOLOL. Oh god, please let me wipe the tear of laughter from my eye before I continue. I mean, you just put forth that because I did not go to an "elite" school and you did, I am unqualified and in over my head? Do you know how bankrupt that line of logic is? I mean I might have just went to a couple of bumpkin schools, but even with my less than elite education I can tell you that is a lousy argument. I am willing to take pretty much any metric you have to offer except, "I was there ergo what I say is evidence". And again, I put forth at least one non-academic criteria I would be willing to look at vs. test scores.

I think I should comment on test scores also. I think test scores are great, but not perfect, indicators of who will be a successful student. I think the LSAT, for instance, is a great indicator of who will do well in law school. However, I think grades in law school are at best a mediocre indicator of who will make a good lawyer.

This thread is like Xmas. I have a liberal elite journalist that has told me facts and data do not matter and then flaunted his elitest background at me in a talk about letting the less advantaged into elite schools. crs, I like you but seriously, that was probably the wrong path to take to attempt to make your point.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I never said anything about passing over qualified candidates. I was answering a question as to why I felt my college experience was enriched by being exposed to a diverse makeup of students.
> 
> btw, I don't buy into the idea of "elite schools" being so much better than other colleges. I also didn't have any problem at all getting into college. I went to the University of Illinois and had a well paying job in finance just two months after graduation. Would I have done much better if I had gone to an Ivy or another elite school? I really doubt it. I also have a friend who graduated from Southern Illinois School of Medicine. Now in her current job as an orthopaedic surgeon, I doubt she feels bad that she was turned down by several top schools.


Lax,

I agree that the rigor at the top public schools is probably on about a par with the "elites". U of Michigan for instance, it tops by any standards. However, I do think one benefits through their career from having gone to an elite, like Harvard, Yale, or the Wharton School. The reason is not only prestige, but the vast alumni network. The alumns of those schools love to help fellow alumns. There's the real value IMO. Often times it is not what you know, but who you know.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I have a liberal elite journalist that has told me facts and data do not matter and then flaunted his elitest background at me in a talk about letting the less advantaged into elite schools. crs, I like you but seriously, that was probably the wrong path to take to attempt to make your point.


The data you demand does not appear to exist, from what I can tell. Apparently you believe such statistics are important, but the schools do not seem to agree. As I mentioned, the dropout rate at Princeton would appear to be quite small since the school accepts zero transfer students. Therefore the statistic you request about dropouts would appear to be completely irrelevant.

I was a scholarship student who worked nearly full time before and during my college years to pay what I could, so it's bizarre that you would attempt to refer to my "elitist background." I said only that I've been there and you haven't. I resent your attempt to make this personal and I demand an apology from you or I will respond in kind.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> The data you demand does not appear to exist, from what I can tell. Apparently you believe such statistics are important, but the schools do not seem to agree. As I mentioned, the dropout rate at Princeton would appear to be quite small since the school accepts zero transfer students. Therefore the statistic you request about dropouts would appear to be completely irrelevant.
> 
> I was a scholarship student who worked nearly full time before and during my college years to pay what I could, so it's bizarre that you would attempt to refer to my "elitist background." I said only that I've been there and you haven't. I resent your attempt to make this personal and I demand an apology from you or I will respond in kind.


You now have the sample universe narrowed down to Princeton (even though you went to Vasser you say).

Sorry, no apology will be forthcoming. You pretty much just said, "I went to an elite school, you didn't, shut yer dumb bumpkin mouth about things above your station". I can't really see any other way to read:



crs said:


> Having attended an elite college (and you didn't), I know firsthand.....you are in over your head here. Accept it.


If you feel *I* was the person that got personal first, I think you need to re-examine that thought.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> You now have the sample universe narrowed down to Princeton (even though you went to Vasser you say).


The article was about Princeton. That's the original point.

It's spelled V-a-s-s-a-r. Maybe if you had gone to a better school, you'd spell better.

I might add that in the cluster of editors where I sit, seven of the 10 attended public universities and all of us come from middle-middle-class backgrounds, not an elite background among us. "Liberal media elite" is a completely inaccurate and moronic phrase that people like Wayfarer (there, did it again) mouth because talking turds like Rush Limbaugh say so and because they obviously lack the common sense to think for themselves.

Like most people, Wayfarer, you know a lot about some things and are completely ignorant about other things. Two of the latter would appear to be the composition of elite college campuses and newsrooms.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> The article was about Princeton. That's the original point.
> 
> It's spelled V-a-s-s-a-r. Maybe if you had gone to a better school, you'd spell better.
> 
> ...


LOL crs, thanks for again staying true to form and not letting me down. You keep talking about Rush and inferring I listen to him and let myself be guided by him. Why do you fixate on Rush so much? While I have listened to him from time to time when driving somewhere, I have to break it to you I am usually involved in helping make people's lives better during the day, i.e. I work. Additionally, if you have been paying even the slightest attention, you would know many, many of my viewpoints are in direct opposition to his. Why is it a default position of yours to infer anyone the disagrees with the high and mighty journalist (with the elite liberal education!) is some sort of automaton, a _tabula rasa_ for Rush to feed lines too? That great journalistic integrity and fact based reporting at work again I guess.

Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Your tone was insulting. I thought that implying you were a Rush Limbaugh lemming was the worst possible insult I could think of. 

But seriously. Liberal media _elite._ If you ever wanted to make a room full of journalists laugh, call them elite. Here are the pay scales at unionized newspapers in the United States and Canada:

You're not a bad guy, but you make some silly assumptions.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Lax,
> 
> I agree that the rigor at the top public schools is probably on about a par with the "elites". U of Michigan for instance, it tops by any standards. However, I do think one benefits through their career from having gone to an elite, like Harvard, Yale, or the Wharton School. The reason is not only prestige, but the vast alumni network. The alumns of those schools love to help fellow alumns. There's the real value IMO. Often times it is not what you know, but who you know.


I can see how a degree from an elite school may help in some instances...investment banking for example. I guess it just depends on what you want out of life. I was not interested in working on Wall Street, so I was perfectly happy to attend a state school. For other jobs such as physicians and financial advisors, I don't think it would make much difference. In my field, a degree means little if you can't bring in the clients.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*Real Affirmative Action*

Affirmative action is an imperfect solution for an imperfect social ill. Only people complaining are those afraid of losing something, like maybe a self entitled edge? Everyone recall the white male, in a advanced career who filed suit to attend medical college on reverse discrimination? Blakely or something. I always figured he should have financed some underpriveledged student's education in the degree field he walked away from. The 'University' is hardly universal . For a true universal education we have the institution of military service. Our nation was partly founded by aversion to forced military service and the draft always controversial. But perhaps a year of some national service, military or civil can help everyone get exposed to all the highs and lows of society, Before attending some college with physically level playing fields in the athletic department at least. I know 6 years military made my education a whole lot more interesting. I knew a hill of manure and a moral moat when I saw one.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> But seriously. Liberal media _elite._ If you ever wanted to make a room full of journalists laugh, call them elite. Here are the pay scales at unionized newspapers in the United States and Canada:


It's not about income - it's about ideology. Most professors aren't particularly well paid, either. They're elite because there are relatively few of them (like journalists), because they have the ability to help form/mold opinion (like journalists), they're give a certain amount of deference (like journalists) in terms of the validity of their viewpoint, and because their views/beliefs diverge from the vast majority of people (like journalists - actually - that's what makes the elitists, not elite). The news media, like professors, have the ability to select and interpret information and to shape the viewpoint to be promulgated - that's what makes them "elite" - it's the power that they have.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Kav said:


> Affirmative action is an imperfect solution for an imperfect social ill. Only people complaining are those afraid of losing something, like maybe a self entitled edge? .


 Yeah, that could be it - or maybe because they take the 15th Amendment seriously, or the Civil Rights Act, etc. and don't believe race should be a factor in any decision. Or maybe it's because they are second generation American and are in an ethnic/racial group that is adversely affected by AA and is a bit confused as to why he's the one making up for past wrongs when neither he nor his ancestors created them, etc.


> Everyone recall the white male, in a advanced career who filed suit to attend medical college on reverse discrimination? Blakely or something. I always figured he should have financed some underpriveledged student's education in the degree field he walked away from. .


 Why - would you do that if you made a career change


> The 'University' is hardly universal . For a true universal education we have the institution of military service. Our nation was partly founded by aversion to forced military service and the draft always controversial. .


 The founding of our nation had absolutely nothing to do with forced military service; maybe forced quartering of British troops, but not forced service.


> But perhaps a year of some national service, military or civil can help everyone get exposed to all the highs and lows of society, Before attending some college with physically level playing fields in the athletic department at least. I know 6 years military made my education a whole lot more interesting. I knew a hill of manure and a moral moat when I saw one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, Rocker nailed it as far as the "elite" part is concerned. Equating income with the term is incorrect, look to the many talks on the Trad forum about the "uppers" vs. new rich. He really nailed it on the part where they hold positions that can help shape people's very beings. Look how many young idiots let themselves get all radicalized when they start university.

What Rocker did not address is that they also hold themselves above the common fray. For example, back when the tenure system was very strong, profs felt invulnerable. Journalists observe vs. do and get to pick what the public sees, at the very least, shape how it is seen. I can see it in your posts, how you speak of journalists. 

However, back to the OP. It seems fairly well documented "minority" does not mean what percent of the population your ethnic group comes from, AA actually makes it tougher for Asians, and it is merely social engineering. I guess if you agree with race based social engineering you like it, if you disagree with race based social engineering, you do not. I still maintain college entry is the wrong time to push this, pre-school is when we need to start making sure all people have the ability to participate in our prosperous and upwardly mobile psuedo-meritocracy.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Having attended an elite college (and you didn't), I know firsthand that the college did not accept people who were unqualified to be there. Some had tests scores a bit below the school's norm, but they were bright kids and handled the workload.


If we can slip past your self-aggrandizing credentialism for a moment, you might consider the nation-wide effects of forced racial integration.

At the top, most selective schools, the difference between the median qualifications of mainstream students and the Affirmative Action students is small. In fact, it is safe to say that it is the smallest of all colleges.

However, if we apply mathematics and economics, we see that this discrepancy is quickly magnified as one goes down the rank of preferred schools. A small reduction of academic qualifications at the top-quintile schools is exponentially larger in the mid-quintile, and even larger at the bottom.

Why? All of the best racial-quota students are artificially shifted up the chain. The progression is not linear, either. By basing the AA policies on percentages, it ensures that this percentage is removed from each succeeding, lower level, making the discrepancy larger (in absolute terms) the further you go down.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> It's not about income - it's about ideology. Most professors aren't particularly well paid, either. They're elite because there are relatively few of them (like journalists), because they have the ability to help form/mold opinion (like journalists), they're give a certain amount of deference (like journalists) in terms of the validity of their viewpoint, and because their views/beliefs diverge from the vast majority of people (like journalists - actually - that's what makes the elitists, not elite). The news media, like professors, have the ability to select and interpret information and to shape the viewpoint to be promulgated - that's what makes them "elite" - it's the power that they have.


The news selects itself. I've said this before here, but I've worked on newspapers with right-wing opinion pages and those with left-wing opinion pages, and the choices those newspapers make on the news pages not only tend to be the same, but they often use each other's stories through cooperative supplemental wire services without any thought at all whether the information came from a conservative or liberal newspaper.

As for the college professors, conservatives pay enormous sums of money to send their children to Ivy League institutions. Why would they subject their children to liberal mind control by sending them there? Wouldn't they be much better off being "educated" at a place where they wouldn't be subjected to forced interaction with people who have backgrounds and viewpoints different from those of their families? Yet the conservative elite still seems to value these liberal institutions highly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs, 

How do you justify the fairly clearly documented racial discrimination going on against Asians? Just wondering.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> If we can slip past your self-aggrandizing credentialism for a moment, you might consider the nation-wide effects of forced racial integration.
> 
> At the top, most selective schools, the difference between the median qualifications of mainstream students and the Affirmative Action students is small. In fact, it is safe to say that it is the smallest of all colleges.
> 
> ...


Fortunately, most college presidents will do the right thing whether there are Affirmative Action policies in place or not. They will use their institutions for society's greater good, which means opening up opportunities to people who have traditionally been denied them. And, of course, they also will do what's in their self-interest so that they can remain college presidents, which means not ruining the college's reputation (and by extension the school's financial condition) by admitting unqualified students. So they will strike a balance between the two, as they always have, and they will ignore those who, out of fear, ignorance and hate, would rather they not practice Affirmative Action, whether officially or unofficially. Say what you wish, but I am confident that those who make such decisions will ignore you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Say what you wish, but I am confident that those who make such decisions will ignore you.


QFT. Perfect example of liberal elite thinking.

So odd that I have repeatedly stated SES *should* be a factor yet you have yet to acknowledge my proposition and insist on race based. Can you just tell me how having the scion of a black millionare sitting next to a poor white kid in a math class increases the "diversity"? Please, just a little rational justification is all I ask.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> fairly clearly documented racial discrimination going on against Asians


I'm not sure I'd say it's clear or documented. As I think I've made rather clear here, though, elite colleges discriminate against practically everybody in an effort to form a student body that is diverse in all aspects. Should Asians now be the lone group that is exempt from this?

It's funny about people such as Wayfarer. When they agree with a story in The New York Times, it is sufficient proof for them. When they disagree with a story in The New York Times, it's liberal bias from an incompetent rag.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's funny about people such as Wayfarer.


Stop it now, you're just saying that because you know it gives my cold, rational heart a fuzzy warm feeling. If you could have just got a Rush slam in there, you'd have made my day :icon_cheers:

Oh, and I can honestly say, I do not think I have ever even held a copy of the NYT. I do not even read the WSJ on a regular basis anymore.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Can you just tell me how having the scion of a black millionare sitting next to a poor white kid in a math class increases the "diversity"?


Are you trying to tell me that money eliminates a person's blackness and that their thought processes and cultural heritages become indistinguishable from those of white people? All I can tell you is that when I met my wife I was sharing a Manhattan apartment with two black people who grew up in slightly more financially advantaged families than mine and attended Syracuse and Harvard. And yet their perceptions of the world were influenced by something I'd never experienced, being prejudged on the basis of their skin color.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> society's greater good


I shudder when I think of the mass murders, thefts, and lesser crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated under the banner of "society's greater good."

I've never seen it used except to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Hey, let us use NPR as a source:



> In October of 1990, the U.S. Department of Education announced the first findings of its investigation...said that the graduate mathematics department _(at UCLA)_ discriminated against Asian students in 1987 and 1988.





> In April of 1989, UC Berkeley Chancellor Ira Michael Heyman publicly apologized for the drop in Asian admissions at the school. Though he denied that policies had been put in place to *deliberately restrict* _(added: inferring there were restrictions, just not deliberate)_ Asians, he vowed to make changes to correct the error.





> In November of 1988, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights announced it was investigating admissions procedures at UC Berkeley and UCLA after receiving complaints that the schools were capping admissions of Asian students.





> But federal investigators looking into the Asian admissions charges began to turn up evidence of other infractions.


All available at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/summary.html

Now crs, since this was done by Frontline, a well respected journalistic effort, I know that this is one of those lose/lose situations for you. You must now either admit Frontline reported some pretty clear evidence of discrimination against Asians or that Frontline got it wrong. Which shall it be?

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Are you trying to tell me that money eliminates a person's blackness and that their thought processes and cultural heritages become indistinguishable from those of white people? All I can tell you is that when I met my wife I was sharing a Manhattan apartment with two black people who grew up in slightly more financially advantaged families than mine and attended Syracuse and Harvard. And yet their perceptions of the world were influenced by something I'd never experienced, being prejudged on the basis of their skin color.


crs, seriously, you are being stupid here. Did you not just say:



crs said:


> They will use their institutions for society's greater good, which means opening up opportunities to people who have traditionally been denied them.


So what opportunity are the kids of Colin Powel, Condi Rice, Russell Simons, Johnny Cochran being denied exactly? So now you are saying a poor white kid, and society in general, will benefit if he/she is in a math class full of millionare black kids? Seriously bud, cut your losses.

Edit: Oh yes, please tell me how the "black" thought process will differ from that of the "white" thought process in a math class and *exactly* how the white kid's math learning experience will benefit.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Hey, let us use NPR as a source:
> 
> All available at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/race/summary.html
> 
> ...


Two schools. That must mean it's widespread and systematic.

As I said, elite colleges discriminate against practically everyone, even on the basis of geography. Should Asians now become the lone exception to this?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Two schools. That must mean it's widespread and systematic.


PROGRESS! Admitting it takes place is the first step.....have a little shame though and admit I just nailed you talking out of your a$$ and now you're attempting an _ad hoc_ rescue.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So what opportunity are the kids of Colin Powel, Condi Rice, Russell Simons, Johnny Cochran being denied exactly? So now you are saying a poor white kid, and society in general, will benefit if he/she is in a math class full of millionare black kids? Seriously bud, cut your losses.


You seem to be making an assumption that the children of well-off black people are admitted to elite schools only on the basis of Affirmative Action rather than on merit. I could say that's a racist assumption, but instead I'll say you typed without thinking about how incredibly bad that looks.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> And yet their perceptions of the world were influenced by something I'd never experienced, being prejudged on the basis of their skin color.


Apparently, you were never denied an academic spot or a job in favor of an affirmative action candidate then.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Apparently, you were never denied an academic spot or a job in favor of an affirmative action candidate then.


Has this ever been proven? I hear people talk about it , but not sure I've seen any proof before.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> So they will strike a balance between the two, as they always have, and they will ignore those who, out of fear, ignorance and hate, would rather they not practice Affirmative Action, whether officially or unofficially. Say what you wish, but I am confident that those who make such decisions will ignore you.


Yes. No one could possibly have a principled objection to affirmative action based on the fact that it disproportionately hurts other minority groups, that it is contrary to American principles, laws (in theory), and ethics (you know - making deicisions based on race), that it acts as a racially devisive factor which diminishes or calls into question the achievements/credentials of those who do not need affirmative action? No, it's becasue someone who thinks it's wrong for an institution to make decisions in which race is a factor is afraid, ignorant, or filled with hate (TIP: you forgot "evil"). Orwellian Doublethink - Racism is wrong; making decisions based on race is wrong - exept when applying to school, or aplying for a job, or.......Only the enlightened Left knows when it is OK to make judgments based on race.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Does anyone have any literature about the origins of Affirmative Action? I'm curious about what they meant for it to address. I remember G.H.W.B speaking of it as a way to address the grievances of those who were descendant of slaves. I'm not sure if diversity has always been apart of it or was that added recently. Anyone who has links? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Has this ever been proven? I hear people talk about it , but not sure I've seen any proof before.


Can't say for sure (isn't that one of the factors that makes it so nefarious?). I believe I've been in school with people who were admitted because of lower standards - subjective - but when the subjective assessment is confirmed by the individual failing to pass the bar exam, it gains deeper credence in my mind.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> QFT. Perfect example of liberal elite thinking.
> 
> So odd that I have repeatedly stated SES *should* be a factor yet you have yet to acknowledge my proposition and insist on race based. Can you just tell me how having the scion of a black millionare sitting next to a poor white kid in a math class increases the "diversity"? Please, just a little rational justification is all I ask.


So you think a rich Blacks culturally identical to a rich whites? Share the same experiences, and life situations?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> You seem to be making an assumption that the children of well-off black people are admitted to elite schools only on the basis of Affirmative Action rather than on merit. I could say that's a racist assumption, but instead I'll say you typed without thinking about how incredibly bad that looks.


Actually, you were the one that inferred that. You shifted the AA argument a few posts ago to say their innate "blackness" brought benefits, ergo I assumed you were saying, they should be covered under AA. Additionally, are you not the guy saying here merit is at best a so/so reason to admit someone? I spotted your inferred racism but let it slide, knowing that you are probably not racist. You are trying to have your cake and eat too in at least three different ways.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> So you think a rich Blacks culturally identical to a rich whites? Share the same experiences, and life situations?


I wouldn't say identical - I'd say they may potentially have much more in common than the rich white guy from Connecticut and the poor white guy living in a trailer in Mississippi.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> So you think a rich Blacks culturally identical to a rich whites? Share the same experiences, and life situations?


I dare say they have more in common than they do with the white guy dumpster diving in Chicago for dinner or the Appalacian family living in a trailer in the woods.

If you want to make divergent life experiences a criteria now, I could easily say having a wealthy old money white family from Fifth avenue brings diversity when mixed with a bunch of wealthy LA kids like Tori Spelling, as they have greatly divergent heritages. So should we give Tori AA?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Does anyone have any literature about the origins of Affirmative Action? I'm curious about what they meant for it to address. I remember G.H.W.B speaking of it as a way to address the grievances of those who were descendant of slaves. I'm not sure if diversity has always been apart of it or was that added recently. Anyone who has links? Thanks in advance.


One of the first statutory descriptions of the concept is contained in relevant sections of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, now codified at 42 USC 2000e - 2000e - 17. For instance, 42 USC section 2000e-5(g)(1) provides:



> If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order _*such affirmative action*_ as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay (payable by the employer, employment agency, or labor organization, as the case may be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice), or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate. (emphasis added).


The concept of the state taking "affirmative" steps to remedy the pernicious effects of racism predated the enactment of the statute, of course. One can note its nascency in the Supreme Court's 1938 decision in _United States v. Carolene Products Co., _when in a celebrated footnote the Court observed that heightened scrutiny should be given to "statutes directed at particular religious . . . or national . . . or racial minorities." The Supreme Court's later decision in _Brown v. Board of Education_ with its suggestion that school desegregation should proceed "forthwith" with "all deliberate speed" was, of course, a call for taking "affirmative" steps to end educational racism. All this was part of a general recognition that something more than mere inaction was necessary both to alleviate some of the harm caused by centuries of institutional racism and to forestall open racial warfare.

One of the first "affirmative" steps by the federal government to implement "affirmative action" was the so-called Philadelphia Plan of 1967, which was intended to remedy obvious racial segregation in the construction industry. This plan made the racial composition of the work force an important factor in awarding federal contracts. The plan was shelved in the the final days of the Johnson Administration, but was resurrected by Devious Dick, who, being the clever fellow he was, saw "affimative action" as a wedge issue to split the civil rights movement away from the labor movement, a variation of his successful "Southern Strategy," if you will. It worked, and it's been all downhill from there.

Addendum: One would also want to take a look at two executive orders: 10925, signed by Kennedy in 1961, and 11246, signed by Johnson in 1965 and amended several times since. Evidently, the former contains the first executive mention of "affirmative action."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, you were the one that inferred that. You shifted the AA argument a few posts ago to say their innate "blackness" brought benefits, ergo I assumed you were saying, they should be covered under AA.


You assumed incorrectly. Nor do I think such people were admitted to college on the basis of AA. But I do think they add diversity.



Wayfarer said:


> Additionally, are you not the guy saying here merit is at best a so/so reason to admit someone?


No, I'm saying merit is not cut-and-dried. There are different kinds of merit. We do not know the specifics of the person suing Princeton. He might have been great on paper but obnoxious during his admissions interview. Perhaps he brought nothing to the table in extracurriculars. His stance appears to be that his grades and test scores were as good as those of candidates who were admitted. I'm saying the admissions people use other factors besides grades and tests to determine merit. Merit is not only what a person achieves for himself but what he adds to the school. Sometimes that means discriminating against an introverted bookworm in favor of a class president with slightly worse academic credentials. Sometimes that means discriminating against a candidate from New Jersey in favor of a candidate from Alaska or Nigeria because it adds to the school's diversity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, I have repeated myself endlessly quite enough on this topic. No one is changing anyone else's mind. I wish I had your faith in the ability of universities to social engineer for a better society crs, it would make me sleep easier at night. That and your ability to ignore or rationalize data that does not agree with your paradigm. Feel free to have the last word.

Cheers


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Wayfarer*

Gentlemen,

Wayfarer,

I am just sitting here, enjoying your posts! I have nothing to say. I applaud your thoughts, and comments.
Thank you my friend.
Nice day gentlemen


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Well, I have repeated myself endlessly quite enough on this topic. No one is changing anyone else's mind. I wish I had your faith in the ability of universities to social engineer for a better society crs, it would make me sleep easier at night. That and your ability to ignore or rationalize data that does not agree with your paradigm. Feel free to have the last word.
> 
> Cheers


I'll let Princeton University have the last word. I suppose you could call it a mission statement (italics mine):

About Princeton: Overview
Princeton simultaneously strives to be one of the leading research universities and the most outstanding undergraduate college in the world. As a research university, it seeks to achieve the highest levels of distinction in the discovery and transmission of knowledge and understanding, and in the education of graduate students. At the same time, Princeton is distinctive among research universities in its commitment to undergraduate teaching.

The University provides its students with academic, extracurricular and other resources -- in a residential community _committed to diversity in its student body, faculty and staff_ -- that help them achieve at the highest scholarly levels and _prepare them for positions of leadership and lives of service_ in many fields of human endeavor.

Through the scholarship and teaching of its faculty, and the many contributions to society of its alumni, Princeton seeks to fulfill its informal motto: "Princeton _in the Nation's Service and in the Service of All Nations_."


----------

