Devastating study on affirmative action.
Wow. This study just came out. It confirms that college admissions is indeed discriminatory against Asian-American applicants. The following quote is mind blowing.
"Hypothetically, all other factors being equal, if the typical white applicant admitted to an elite private school had an SAT score of 1400, an Asian American applicant would need a score of 1540, a black applicant would need a 1090, and a Hispanic candidate would need one of 1270 to have the same probability of admission."
Pretty much the same results as well from this 2005 study conducted by two Princeton scholars: http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webOpportunity%20Cost%20of%20…
If by “devestating” you mean legally, then maybe, I don’t know enough about the legal precedents and arguments to really have a strong opinion on the issue (my first instinct would be to say that it prolly won’t matter that much because as mentioned in another post this is largely in line with previous research that was definitely there for the fisher case, though you never know how exactly it’ll effect Kennedy’s opinion/how he’ll come down on the argument when brought in the context of discrimination against Asians). If you mean morally, then I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of the moral justification for affirmative action. The moral case for affirmative action has always been one of reparations/correction for/of injustices both current and historical. In a series of cases, the courts determined that a pure quota system, the most natural way to act on such moral intuitions, was unconstitutional, but that colleges could still use race based criteria that favored underrepresented minorities along with other criteria if they had a compelling reason to value diversity. This has lead to people (mostly on the left) making arguments that a racially diverse student body is inherehently good for universities. While I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument (especially in social sciences and humanities where it might lead to examination of problems that otherwise wouldn’t be considered), it is at best legal double speak, and more often an unexamined opinion held simply because it aligns with what other people with similar political values are saying. I think the plight of Asian applicants makes it pretty clear what the problems aremorally with this sort of argument, and given concepts like viewpoint diversity and the fact that tighter knit teams outperform more diverse teams it’s plausibility is also questionable (not sure of the state of research at the time so maybe it was moreplausible when the decisions were made). Now following the moral implications of the reparations/corrective argument for affirmative action, it seems pretty clear that it would be better if it was based more on income level, though I think at least in the case of African Americans there might also be reason to believe that keeping some race based standards would still be more just, based on studies showing discrimination and differential treatment beyond what’s explainable by income levels, and while racial diversity is clearly not the same thing as viewpoint diversity, for a lot of subjects I think it is hard to have the former without at least some degree of the latter (if we’re thinking seriously about what an ideal meritocratic educational system would look like it’s also worth considering the effect of things like legacies and athletic). Finally, for my fellow Asians, if your argument is simply that Asians would be better off without affirmative action and you don’t care about what happens to other minorities, I’d suggest you examine the research showing differential responses for interviews based on resume names, and the fact that this sat differential has arisen relative to white people despite the main motivation being to help out underrepresented and disadvantaged minorities (I.e. it’s not clear to me that the extra spots would actually go to the more qualified candidates, and not just instead end up with more legacies and Ivy League schools with more depth in their crew teams). Placing all your hopes on them eventually letting us just be people like they did for the Irish seems like a risky bet given the more pronounced physical differences and even if that came to pass it doesn’t morally justify the continuing discrimination of others (though as a third generation, multiracial but identifiably Asian native English speaker from a well to do background but with an Asian last name I might not personally appreciate all the issues you might face).
Paragraphs motherf***er, use them!
I think I would more, if I could edit on my iPhone without the cursor going all crazy, though, as this sentence demonstrates, I’ve always been a run-on-y sort of guy (I’m a shitty writer and at least to me, splitting up the points reads as losing a lot of the nuance I’m trying to express).
My nephew's asian friend in CA got a 1500 on his SAT with a 4.0 GPA and was rejected from UCB.
![https://media1.tenor.com/images/b0fbe04946eec83d9392c3da7d4917a3/tenor…] Its really hilarious. Sad too I guess. But, at least hilariously sad. Something.
If he were black or latino, he would have gotten into Harvard. Keep in mind that even wealthy blacks and latinos as well as non-American blacks (e.g. Jamaicans, Nigerians) get affirmative action while working class whites and Asians don't.
Yeah and are all Europeans grouped as 'white' even if they are poor first generation immigrants? Its odd.
These classes and divisions really need to stop. But, its politically incorrect to say something isn't it?
This will probably take years to fix.
This isnt true. I had a 35 ACT, 4.0 UW, 4.63W, completed Calc 3 and Linear algebra in high school, had great ECs, and am Hispanic, but got rejected from HYPSMW. Ended up at Ross. Although it may be that I went to a t5 high school, I think that the admissions process is still random for URMs.
Didn't the california school system already get rid of AA? I'm assuming by UCB you mean UC Berkeley.
It's funny you mention this, because Berkeley (and all other UC schools) doesn't actually have affirmative action.
Yea, and most private schools don't have an "official" policy of affirmative action either...yet it still happens. Weird how that works.
In general, Asians have been getting crapped on for a long time and they just take it.
When the Chinese first moved over here, the US wouldn't allow them to get normal jobs so they had to start restaurants. Their rights were largely compromised. But, we don't really hear much from Asians about gripes over the past.
Really, Asian-Americans just work so hard.
I guess the diversity factor is their main consideration? Do they not want the schools to have so many Asians? That seems discriminatory.
Asian 2nd gen here. I am waiting for us to collectively say enough is enough. But culturally, there is definitely a barrier in our collective mindset that tries to tell us we should not speak out and work harder. Don't know if its our parents growing up under Mao, don't know if its centuries of confucianism/being polite, dont know if its "actions speak louder than words," don't know if its just minority fear, but we legit need to stop and speak out about these issues, because if we don't stand up for ourselves, nothing will ever happen.
Yup. Fully agree. When I meet with freshly minted college grad, I tell them to address and raise voice when unfairly treated. Stop being that stereotypical quiet Asian who does all the work and does not get any credit. Stop being that passive fuck who does not send back well-done ribeye when ordered rare.
Is the study "devastating"? Not really. Knew it since I was in HS during 90s.
They are getting more aggressive. I'm cautiously optimistic. As the younger Asians become more affluent and less culturally conservative, they will speak up against the liberal discrimination against them. It's insane that so many of them vote democratic when their policies hurt them.
Interestingly enough, growing up in a neighborhood with tons of Asian families, a majority of them voted repblican. Made me glad to see that
I wish the biggest issue in life for African Americans was worrying about getting into Harvard vs. settling for Northwestern. With that said, let's do away with race-based AA and enact income-based AA. Don't think this would solve the Asian "plight" though, as they have the highest incomes, on average, in the United States
p.s. let's also do away with the legacy admit system while we're at it.
I actually agree with this. I have long been a proponent of income based AA and getting rid of racial preferences entirely.
Very much agree here. The legacy system is really just ridiculous.
At the end of the day colleges are a business. Wealthy alumni who consistently donate to the school are going to have children who are favored in the admissions process. With a certain pedigree these students already have an advantage and are seen as safe admits as they have a relatively higher probability of being successful and thus, donate to the school. And the system goes on and on..
wow-
To get into elite colleges, some advised to ‘appear less Asian’
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2015/06/01/college-counselors-adv…
As lawsuits allege racial quotas at elite colleges, high-achieving applicants call on consultants to help win admission — and receive guidance on minimizing their ethnicity.
Brian Taylor is director of Ivy Coach, a Manhattan company that advises families on how to get their students into elite colleges. A number of his clients are Asian American, and Taylor is frank about his strategy for them.
“While it is controversial, this is what we do,’’ he says. “We will make them appear less Asian when they apply.”
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-i…
It seems like it’s good advice, since the same seems to be true for job applications/resumes (see above), though the fact that it’s even worse for African Americans (at least where there aren’t policies like affirmative action or aggressive diversity initiatives to directly address it), and people from low income backgrounds suggests to me that it’s more likely due to an unconscious preference among those generally in power (I.e. rich white people) for people similar to them than a specific conscious anti-Asian prejudice.
It's not worse for African-Americans. They get affirmative action at all levels: undergrad admissions, grad admissions, jobs.
Generally speaking, the problem with affirmative action (and society today) is trying to make things unequal equal. Everything about racial specialization, strengths, weaknesses, is getting ignored at the detriment to productivity in effort to paint a facade of egalitarianism.
Sure you can take a poodle on your hunting trip. But what does that (ultimately) achieve?
You could also arbitrarily split up Labrador retrievers based on the color of their fur, only take the black ones out hunting, and then when you take out a yellow lab one time and it’s not as good as your trained black ones, assume that it was the same as poodles and Labrador’s more generally.
Except that's not how human genetics work, but nice try.
This might be one of the best analogies on this topic I've read. Well done.
...Except poodles are exceptional hunting/water fowl dogs, but you came to a shitty conclusion based on a lack of information and assumed that bc you've seen a frou-frou poodle on television that that's what they're all like, thereby relegating it to a "lower class" on your personal list of which dog is best for something.
I had a discussion with my tax go-to guy, and a few other corporate executives I have worked with. The MD's that I know that run some firms have also mentioned this issue with me in the past. This topic has come up a lot lately.
Sad as it may seem, changing to an American name would place myself in a better position when it comes to future applicants for roles (promotions). Also less chance of getting ID Theft.
The kid I worked with graduated 4.0 Engineering, Valedictorian, never received a full-time offer from the tech company I worked with (kept on as a contractor for 4+ years) simply because he is black.
Life beats down on you pretty hard, and part of me inside wants to fight the system become victorious!
I'm having a very hard time believing that. Companies, especially those liberal/techy ones, would kill for someone like that to join them full time. Great qualifications + satisfying their "Diversity and inclusion" mandate? It's an arms race now among tech companies on how diverse and inclusive they are. He's their dream come true. If your friend was never offered a full-time position, it must be due to other reasons. His skin color would only help, not harm (especially coupled with his qualifications).
I would also say that he is the only person on his team with a bachelor's degree, whereas everyone else has their MS/PhD's. Several technology companies has gone through massive layoffs not too long ago, having a job regardless contracted or not is still a win.
Obviously company or group "X" will give many reasons (budget, qualifications, etc), for any number of reasons why they will not offer someone a full-time offer. We had guys stay on as technicians with BS qualifications for longer before they were offered (and before the layoffs occurred). Right now, even people who are permanent employees are not immune to layoffs occurring in different groups as the company restructures.
He has been offered a full-time role at a similar company out in Texas, as he worked on their project at the current company, but decided to stay here and start a business with a football buddy of his. He will ride out the contract and then work more on his business.
You need to go to church. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You are just talking from your ass, bro.
BS.
"So I've been a contractor for your company for over four years. I have perfect grades and graduated number one in my class. I'm interested in pursuing a full-time opportunity here; is this an option for me?"
"Well, you do have perfect qualifications and you've never under-performed in any possible way, but unfortunately...clicks teeth...you're black, so it's a no-go."
"Ok. ;("
I totally believe you. Totally. 100%.
A buddy of mine said his high school friend got accepted to an Ivy League by filling in the bubble on the SAT next to “Alaskan Native”. He was accepted and then rejected when they found out. Him and his parents threatened law suit on discrimination and they changed their stance. Attended the next Fall.
The following is all my opinion and I have no legal background.
It seems to me that as we set different standards for diferent people based on race, it communicates different messages to those races. The Asian kid may wonder why standards are higher for him. Will he think he's better than everyone else? The black kid may wonder why standards are lower for him. Is he worse than everyone else? I don't see this method as sustainable or healthy.
Long-term, if we really want equality of opportunity (not outcome, this isn't the USSR where we force people to do things) why don't we treat people equally? And for the sake of my point here, I mean set the rules equal for everyone. It seems that as your identity is more and more defined by what "group" you belong to (white, black, gay straight, etc.) instead of your individual traits and merits, society is more and more fragmented, with an almost tribal approach with groups opposing each other.
This is all from a relatively layman's perspective, but it seems like we're moving more towards judging by color of skin and than content of character. Would like to see points and counterpoints of what y'all think.
It's hard to say it it's the right or the wrong way to treat this problem, since it becomes an issue of philosophy. Personally (mea culpa, have not thought much about this), instead of diversity quotas maybe we should invest in education for the disadvantaged groups.
I see the "logic" behind affirmative action, but it begs the question of, "how much is enough?" When will we have punished whites and Asians enough? Which is what AA is doing.
I think long-term, we're going to have to get to the point where the same rules and standards apply to everyone.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the admissions/application process here. Many on this website believe that this process should be fundamentally fair to the applicant, however, this is not the capitalist society we live it. The institution has an obligation ONLY to its shareholders, or more to the point, are responsible only to the bodies who own/govern them.
The crux of the argument here is that: A) higher SAT+higher GPA = B) more intelligent = C) more deserving to attend.
The flaw is that B does NOT equal C from the viewpoint of these institutions (I would also argue that A doesn't always equal B either).
Private colleges are not utilities and should not be viewed as such. They do NOT owe you fairness just because you deign to apply.
The public institutions owe you a fair shot at an education NOT a fair shot at the school of your choice. So while I'm sure UCBerk rejected some high performing non-URM (to use the mba applications terminology) , those same people most likely got into Riverside or Irvine
I'd say that B, in conjunction with more demonstrated accomplishments, does equal C. I agree that A does not always equal B, but in most cases probably does. And the rules should be fair. We should not discriminate. Life may not be fair, but the law and rules should be.
The problem I have with different standards for different people is that you're assuming someone is more deserving with lower standards based on assumptions of what their life has been like due to their race. It's more or less a racist policy.
I agree that colleges are not utilities. However, we do not allow other businesses to discriminate based on race/sex/etc., yet we allow (and encourage) colleges to. If a bank wouldn't lend to a black person we wouldn't say, "the bank doesn't owe you a fair shot at the bank of your choice." Yet, we tell more qualified white and Asian applicants, "the college doesn't owe you a fair shot at the school of your choice." To me, this only encourages double-standards and strengthens the divide between people. And, in my mind, it is racist.
(I'm not accusing you of racism in the slightest, just sharing how I view rules I see as discriminatory. I know the R-word has some aggressive connotations.)
You are misconstruing the argument.
First, we are not saying that universities have a moral obligation to accept certain applicants. They don't. No one has a moral right to get in. However, private universities that accept federal funding (as all top private schools do), are subject to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such, they are not allowed to discriminate based on race. Yes, SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action, but their conclusion is intentionally vague. They argue that race can be used as a factor, among many other factors in admissions, but that race should not be a definitive factor. The problem is that SCOTUS does not have access to internal admission data and details of admission proceedings, and due to the broad vague nature of their rulings, schools have been able to interpret it in whichever way they please. Given recent lawsuits by Asian group, colleges are beginning to turn over more data, and with more smoking guns and a conservative court, my hope is that SCOTUS issues a new directive that explicitly prevents schools from considering race as a factor. It's a stretch but that's the hope.
Second, the argument against AA is not that applicants with higher grades and scores should always get in over those with lower stats. Rather, we have ample empirical evidence which shows that on the aggregate, Asians are held to higher admission standards than other ethnic groups. That's discrimination.
Like black people will walk into an interview or apply to admissions, “acting black”.
The problem is not blacks or Latinos, I'll tell you who it is, if you want to get real specific. This is just a proxy battle wealthier whites are fighting to exert their majority will on everyone else.
If you look at numbers, individually, plenty of quality schools like the U of Cal system, Mich, schools in the NE, and along the East Coast have numbers ranging 10-40%+ Asians. Blacks are mostly WSO trolls at its finest. Fucking thread here is ridiculous.
Also, if you look at what's happening, I suppose this is a timely thread too. Not surprising a bunch of (most likely, wealthy white Trump supporters) are coming on here to set Asians against blacks.
DON'T TAKE THE BAIT. They're trolls doing what they do best. They're also not for anyone but the wealthy whites from where they come.
This article echoes sentiments I was going to go deep into research to pull out numbers, but don't really need to, since this writer pretty much says what exactly I think on this topic, that AA is a holistic approach to admissions:
And, it's mostly rich white people bankrolling this topic to stay in the mainstream, because they like to consistently bombard us with a message that affirmative action is bad for people looking to get an education, since it pits URM against Asians:
While it's true that Asians might have less spots than they might otherwise have, they still are an overrepresented group, especially one that is mostly successful due to a strong emphasis on education versus other things like their white counterparts, and not to their detriment, rather to the school's benefit:When you look at numbers, like high school students entering into college--56% black, 70% white, and 90% Asian--then the numbers enrolled in college--nearly always
You're a spectacularly bad poster.
The left has continually pushed identity politics over the last decade, but I'm sure you haven't had a problem with that. What do you think the outcome of this was gonna be though? You think white people are just gonna sit there and take it up the ass while continually being called "racist?" Most white people in this country have approximaltey zero privilege regardless of what your sociology 101 professor taught you. Not everyone is a rich coastal elite who went to Exeter and then Harvard. Most are simply living a basic flyover life, trying to get by on an average $50k/yr salary while paying their mortgage, having weekend BBQs, and saving enough to take their family on a modest vacation every year.
Sure, there's a certain percentage of self hating whites who will happily oblige with being called the devil constantly, but most won't. The politics and divide in this country is only going to get worse, and if every other group can advocate for themselves (blacks, gays, latinos, Jews, etc.) based solely on their identity then you shouldn't be shocked when lower/middle-class white people start pushing back.
Wrong. I've complained plenty of times about women identity politics, gays, trans, I've never even supported BLM (although I think accusations against them were blown out of proportion), and even this whole immigration stuff is a mess to me. I don't like this victimization of people, then jumping on anyone who doesn't hop on the bandwagon. But what I hate more is people who take this approach you are in explaining everything through this silly lense, trying to revise everything to fit your narrative.
Throughout this thread and many others, WSO people are falsely claiming that the world has been tipped against whites by minorities, as if blacks are the ones who started dividing the world up by background for divisive purposes. The history is clear that an oppressed minority were delivered an extremely unleveled playing field, and only once activism ensued, those minorities gained only basic human rights. But that left a very long runway to actual success by way of seats at the most critical components to our modern infrastructure.
This is exactly where the left's bs comes in to cause issues. But your views are toxic too, because it takes a negative view on real action taken on to achieve real causes. Again, blacks are under attack throughout this thread with no focus at all on benefitting poor people in general, because the blacks are not the wealthy ones gaining admission at the cost of poor white people. Yet, without regard for real work and real achievements, the focus here is not on achieving more for whites or even Asians for that matter, it's on taking away from blacks.
This argument is literally just another false attempt. So, they're trying to live normal and basic lives but complaining about Asians being discriminated against at schools like Harvard? The whole point of this thread is to say that affirmative action should be scrapped in favor of whites and Asians. Harvard is not a place someone goes when "trying to get by on an average $50k/yr salary" those people aren't making bullshit threads or posting on them.
O.o
As if I needed this study to remind me how much I hate Affirmative Action.
Trump 2020
This is my open letter to the late Dr. King. RIP.
“Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.”
We have tried that, as a nation. Sadly, what we have found is that millions of African-Americans are inherently violent, uneducated, uncivilized, arrogant, and have almost an instinctual obsession with self-entitlement. Yes, there are many blacks in the United States that are educated, civilized, non-violent and productive, and you would be proud of such accomplisments. But they are the statistical exception, not the rule. Our prisons are overflowing with violent blacks, and statistics show that 50% of all black men will be a convicted felon by the time they reach 35 years old. Blacks, and many whites, will claim racism, either as the root of this issue, or as the basis for skewed statistics. Yet if we look at Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Gary IN., Oakland, Detroit, and remaining cities that constitute the 10 most violent places in the US, blacks dominate the numbers. Not surprisingly, the group with the largest rate of high-school drop-outs is blacks. The group, more than any other, that is responsible for shutting down entire high-schools because they cannot pass even simple algebra tests is black. And this isn’t surprising; blacks consistently scored at or near the retardation level on average when tested for IQ. However, because of this fact, IQ tests have all but been abolished because such tests (which for decades served as a reliable indicator of success for all the other groups) have been deemed “racist.”
Like millions of whites and blacks, we all realize that slavery and the subsequent treatment of blacks in this country was an abomination. But slavery ended a long time ago, and the civil rights movement in the 1960’s did away with most of the terrible racist laws and conditions in this country. Today, blacks can do anything they want with regards to work and school. Schools and scholarships set up for minorities are ripe for the taking. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on special programs for blacks for education, employment, and health programs. Yet, after decades of such programs, and despite wide-open opportunities for blacks, they still, to this day, have failed to thrive as a whole.
You would be ashamed of the so-called black leaders that, for years, have told blacks that their plight is solely the result of white oppression. Worse, when other blacks try to stand up and counter such drivel with hard facts, they are eviscerated as “Uncle Toms” who are “out of touch with reality.” Actually, they most often perfectly articulate the dynamics of the black community, and point out that violence, rather than a reprehensible and criminal act, has been embraced as “strength”, and education, which is the core of this country’s productivity, is deemed as “soft” and “white” and not worthy of pursuit.
Dr. King., if you were here today and saw what has transpired since your death, you would be appalled; not at how whites and other have treated blacks since your passing, but with how little blacks have done with what they have before them.
Recusandae quo soluta ea consequatur. Est recusandae alias ipsa veniam. Assumenda enim qui aut quo maxime.
Impedit aut eligendi ullam velit harum expedita. Quia odio soluta iure voluptates mollitia cupiditate.
Quibusdam dicta mollitia consequatur nihil tempora et incidunt. Facilis occaecati laudantium placeat quia ex. Dolorem voluptatem aperiam soluta sunt qui iusto provident. Quia est magni corporis architecto asperiores aliquam molestias.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
At totam ea ea doloribus est itaque. Qui animi dolores eius sit. Tenetur et laborum nulla praesentium vel explicabo. Ducimus consequuntur voluptate eligendi et. Aut veniam blanditiis praesentium soluta corrupti expedita nisi officia.
Quam provident vero aut quia at commodi expedita. Velit aut est cum corporis molestiae placeat. Nihil dolorem aut veritatis reprehenderit possimus saepe laudantium. Et a officia dolor voluptatem autem labore rerum. Et facere tenetur voluptatem maxime dolor. Est non consequuntur labore voluptates non rerum ipsa expedita. Laborum officia ut eum occaecati.
Consequuntur illo aliquam provident et voluptatem. Et non eligendi facere sit corporis consequatur iure recusandae.
Culpa saepe totam non odio autem accusamus ex velit. Ut velit ipsa officiis error ipsum iusto. Ut praesentium aut repudiandae quia voluptatum aperiam. Omnis placeat illo at voluptatem minus eaque. Suscipit rem aut rerum debitis occaecati enim. Tenetur in modi aut doloribus.
Dicta a voluptatum rerum aut incidunt voluptas. Consequatur sunt veritatis sint eum velit cumque. Id dolorem minus tempore ipsum aut.
Magni nam aut et nisi quia et. Nemo temporibus et accusantium iste sed aut. Quia rerum provident dolor voluptatem.