Affirmative Action Recruiting
Why is there affirmative action when it comes to recruiting at major banks? I don't see the media quoting how many minorities a bank employees...
It seems very unfair that hispanics, blacks and native americans get a distinct edge when it comes to the recruiting process for summer internships(I thought this stopped at college acceptances). Does this hold for full time recruitment as well?
Also, how big of an advantage is this and from a philosophical and moral point of view, do you guys think this is fair? Especially the fact that some of the better represented minorities like asians and indians still have the suffer the persecution and prejudices associated with being a minority but get none of the benefits. The NFL and NBA doesn't employ affirmative action, why should GS MS and JPM?
I'm under the impression they do it for PR reasons, not for any logical reasons. I know the argument is that different races bring different perspectives to the table, but considering they don't have people specify religious/philosophical orientation, political values, and socioeconomic status (though I quibble with that, too) I don't really think that argument holds.
It's bullshit, I mean if you're good you're good. No one should care what the color of your skin is, but it shouldn't propel you into a position for which you are not qualified for. Banks should be color blind but if they were, they'd get sued by AA candidates. They still get sued when AA candidates don't make the cut and say it was due to race.
I agree with you about affirmative action being a poor policy. But, your comparison between the NFL and NBA with GS, MS and other BBs is beyond stupid.
MP80, care to explain?
I'm not trying to make a direct comparison here, merely being facetious just playing off stereotypes(this doesn't mean I believe them) if you take your average asian kid, he will probably be 5 8, extremely good at math take your average black kid, 5 11, athletic
obviously this is extremely racist, but I think on the whole part the general trend follows...(how many asians play in the NBA?)
So with that said, it would be unfair that the black kid, who probably isn't as smart as the asian, gets to work at a BB because of AA
However, the asian, who probably isn't as athletic as the black kid, will not get a chance in the NBA
obviously there are exceptions and again this is extremely racist but I am just trying to make a point
Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. No one woke up one day and decided that asians are good at math or that black guys had sick outside jump shots.
There is a 3.4 minimum GPA just to apply for minority programs at Wharton, so I call bullshit on that. This is very hypocritical on my part, but what about all those guys who get internships, jobs, a huge inheritance, through their family / prep schools? They are almost all not black. I don't see you complaining about them.
I've bitched about them before...
In this industry, everyone complains about everybody. It's not all racial / ethnic - many people complain about college / fraternity - based allegiances as well. In one place your background might help you, in another it will hurt you. That's just the way it is.
It's a useless debate as there's so much subjectivity in job processes, much more than in college admissions. You can argue about how wrong it is and how it should be more fair, but at the end of the day, banks will hire who they want to hire. My advice - work hard, learn from your mistakes, improve your creds and at the end of the day you'll succeed.
Knock it off!! Did this guy really say the NFL or NBA doesn't employ AA? hahahahaha
Well put Midnight_Oil
good point midnight_oil, you'd be surprised how many people get in because their parent's are clients. What's a $100,000 analyst for a million dollar account. If you get down to it, it's all about connections whether minority program or mom the CFO
Back in Summer '08 fuld and blankfein actually traded kids to work at their firm.
Actually I think a $100,000 analyst is probably more for the $100m accounts.
And, yea, affirmative action is stupid. But life's not fair, so either get walked on or do something about it. Be the best so you don't have to worry about AA.
True was talking more about the fee side...I'm pretty sure a BB wouldn't look at grandma's savings
Affirmative action was initially geared towards providing access for those who were previously shut out from participation. Historically, minorities were denied opportunities because of the color of their skin placing them at an inherent disadvantage when competing. I think as society has progressed, many of these boundaries have been removed but there still remains astounding evidence that these programs are still needed. You have to understand that the clientele that Wall Street caters to nowadays is much different than in the past. It's much more diverse and to communicate with that client base you are going to need an employee pool just as diverse.
As for your argument that the NBA doesn't use affirmative action, have you seen the Indiana Pacers?
This statement makes no sense. Employ affirmative action in a line of work where PHYSICAL talent gets you in the door, you can run a 4.1 40 and be Indian your going to beat out any black kid that can run a 4.8 40 at the same position. But when the skill goes to something that you can't physically quantify, then affirmative action tries to level the playing field. Your telling me if your born into money, go to Exeter, then HYP its wrong to give someone who comes from south side Chicago a chance to compete with you for the same job?
Arguably some AA analysts aren't as talented as some of the kids who don't get the same opportunities. The NBA/NFL comparison is saying that a team isn't going to draft you just because you're a minority, rather it's based on pure ability/upside. You can't say the same for finance.
intellect is just as quantifiable as atheletic ability(obviously SAT scores, GPA, awards won, leadership positions)
obviously they are not perfect measures of intellect but neither is your 100m time when it comes to athletic skill
So, now that it's come up, does being AA/Hispanic help you during BB recruiting?
AA actually hurts qualified minority candidates, many people will assume that you were a marginal AA admit even if you were eminently qualified.
yea but in terms of getting the job, AA definitely helps. When it comes to impressions, I guess you have to really prove that you got the job not because you were a minority but because you actually qualified
Harvard, very eloquently and succinctly put, this is exactly my point
Not sure about the argument about the Indiana Pacers, but their starting 5 of the year so far includes Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Darren Collison, Mike Dunleavy and Josh McRoberts, which top off-the-bench subs being Brandon Rush, T.J.F., and James Posey.
A pretty mixed team, I would say. 6 African and two European Americans.
This topic seriously comes up every few weeks...
There is AA for AAs in the NFL for coaching positions. Its called the "Rooney Rule".
But there will never be a true meritocracy. The closest it will come down to is Soviet-style wiping out of the czar family and nobility. I don't think we would want to go through that, just so that we'd install another "elite" in place of the old one.
Life is unfair sometimes. I think people should worry less about the perceived injustices (in the form of elitism, nepotism, AA, or whatever else they're afraid of) and should just focus on themselves.
I wonder how many in WSO will be willing to change their race from White/Asian to Black/Hispanic for a better odd of IB/S&T/Consulting jobs.
sign me up
As in not just change it in paper, but (in theory) basically you start looking/acting black, your family/friends are black, etc. I guess it will come with all the advantages (like gaining muscle tone without much effort) and disadvantages (diabetes, weight gain, etc.). Any takers in changing your race?
I'll trade. I think even if you're half, that still counts, so I'll go with half black.
i'd rather just take a 1/16th native american and go home with my BB offer
What is the deal with Affirmative Action: GPA/GMAT variances in MBA business schools">M7 for URM? (Originally Posted: 04/07/2014)
I'm really interested in this as I listened to a recording of a debate at Harvard Law School called, "Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good." The premise of the for group said that in STEM majors it would be better if URM got into lesser ranked schools as they would have a higher chance of not dropping out.
Does anyone have an idea of the of GMAT/GPA variance for canidates who get into MBA business schools">M7 who are White vs. URM?
I'd also be interested in hearing your arguments on this.
i get that intuitively, maybe they would be more suitable at lower ranked schools if they were really of lesser ability that much is clear
however by going to lesser ranked schools, they also wouldn't be aiming high either... i'm interested in the responses you might get to this, WSO being a bastion for conservatism
this thread will do more harm than good
+1
Not gonna poke this hornet nest. No good will come out of this.
I feel this attitude is why we always play "kick the can" in the times of greatest challenge to change. Don't be scared of the debate. This particular conversation is likely to stir up some asinine comments, I'm sure. But I'm confident attitudes of acceptance and tolerance will prevail in the long run.
MBA business schools">M7 student here. I don't have raw numbers, but my gut feeling is that this is not a pertinent issue for b-schools. In the first place, business school isn't hard, so pretty much everyone there is capable of doing the work. Two, admission is determined by a lot of things beyond grades/test scores, so you'll see a wide range for every racial group. Three, job placement is determined by pretty much everything but grades and test scores, so even if 1 and 2 weren't true, it still wouldn't matter.
I disagree with the premise that higher ranked schools are necessarily more difficult in the STEM majors. If anything the state universities have freshman year weed out programs to make sure that anyone who slid in through the cracks is expunged from the program. On the other hand, grade inflation is an epidemic at some colleges and universities, usually the higher ranked ones.
I read a study about 10 years ago where a guy sat in on classes at schools all throughout the Boston area and found out that not only was content nearly identical in classes from school to school (Boston College and Harvard, for example) but often times even the slides on the overheads had been shared and were identical.
Absolutely. The drop-out rate is lower for higher ranked universities. "Target" schools typically have 5 year graduation rates of 97%+
Highly ranked private schools are highly ranked partially because of outcomes, which can drive grade inflation. The school's brand takes a major hit if good students with 3.3 GPAs have difficulty obtaining top grad/professional school placement or selective jobs. The solution is giving the average student a 3.3-3.4 GPA. Good students get 3.6-3.7+ GPAs, obtain great outcomes, and come back to the school years later to help recruit. The school Brand persists. Problem solved.
Affirmative action (Originally Posted: 05/31/2012)
Brady, try this next time you apply to HBS, lol'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76902.html
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-s…
OHHHHH SNAP! SO THAT'S WHY OBAMA HIRED HER!!! J/K, but this is pretty bad.
note to self: sooooo, this actually does not fly, I'll have to find another way to beat the system. Dammit.
Affirmative action (ie. reverse discrimination) is such a god damn joke it's not the fucking 1960's anymore
What a fucking joke. Nowadays, they don't take that shit anymore. I had a buddy who told me that when he applying to med schools there was a kid he knew that claimed Native American status. This kid thought he was slick and got a few interviews and two admits. At the end of the process, they asked him for all kinds of crazy documentation, including some type of tribal registration. Last he heard, the kid was in law school lol.
as a mane rooted in the afro american community i agree. the best mane should win regardless of racialing.
if u can ball u deserve 2 have it all
^YUP. 100% Agree.
So what's the deal - is she Native American or not? Politico article seems to be a bit ambivalent about it. If she is, the she only lied about what she told Harvard and UPenn. If she's not, then she lied about that AND being NA in the first place - wow. Either way pretty bad. This is also the woman who wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, just because "you can build public attention behind it"
Well, it depends. What do you call being 1/32 Cherokee? Lol
I'm all for powerful women, but not THIS powerful woman.
come on, her people have been oppressed for so long she deserves a leg up. didn't you ever study the trail of tears in 5th grade social science? WTF do they teach in the schools these days?
Guys, reinstating a form of Glass-Steagall is a great idea. Especially for those who are in finance to use their intellect in a professional setting as opposed to conglomerates using you're granny's deposits, the federal reserve's support and government bail outs to out finance you.
Let's not let our opinion of Elizabeth Warren cloud that either way.
Affirmative action is such a joke. We're living in the 21th century with a black president. Isn't that proof enough that there isn't any widespread or institutional racism.
As an Asian, getting screwed over by affirmative action has actually made me seriously consider voting for Republicans/Libertarians.
A lot of unsupported claims in this thread, lol.
Anyway just going to leave this here:
Department of Justice investigates Harvard over its affirmative action policies (Originally Posted: 11/21/2017)
It's no secret that Harvard and other top universities discriminate against Asian applicants by subjecting them to higher standards than black and latino applicants. Of course, this would never have happened under Obama or Hillary's DOJ. Kudos to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions for looking into this. My guess is this eventually gets to the Supreme Court.
The initial affirmative action case, the seminal Bakke decision of 1978, said that schools cannot use explicit quotas (i.e., exactly 10% of the class and no more must be Asian), but they can use race as "one of many factors" when evaluating applicants but that race alone cannot be the decisive factor. The case even mentioned Harvard's admissions policy as the "model" to follow. As one can imagine, the wording in the decision is super broad, and it has allowed schools to use implicit quotas to artificially restrict the # of Asian students. Consider the following: the population of Asians in this country has doubled since 1990; yet, the % of Asians at the Ivy League undergraduate schools has narrowed to between 15-20%. At several of the Ivies, the current % of Asians is actually lower than it was in 1990.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/politics/harvard-affirmative-action-justi…
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/trump-vs-affirmative-action
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-undergrad-sued-for-affir…
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/harvard-hides-behind-affirmative…
https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/affirmative-action
I mean isn't this discussion at the "beating a dead horse" phase? What more could possibly be covered that hasn't already been covered?
I've been waiting for this thread ever since I heard of this story and saw that Brady had returned home. Anyone who didn't see this thread coming is either naive or doesn't know who Brady is.
Harvard undergrad sued for affirmative action (Originally Posted: 11/17/2014)
Harvard, along with UNC Chapel Hill, have been named in a lawsuit filed by a newly formed nonprofit group: Students for Fair Admissions. The lawyers for the plaintiffs were also involved in the Fisher vs. Texas affirmative action case from last year.
Basically, the plaintiff argues that Harvard is discriminating against Asian-Americans in its admissions policy, supported by compelling data. Since Harvard is a private university, it is being sued for violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act while UNC is being sued for violating the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.
The lawyers here are going a lot further by arguing that race should NOT be used at all when making admission decisions. Previously, the argument against AA was that race can be used but only within a holistic context, thus never serving as the primary or decisive factor.
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-and-unc-chapel-hill-sued-over-af…
Would be so great if they could eliminate race in college and job selection processes.
A year too late for me, but it would be great if they could get rid of that idiocy.
Amen. Using race is an utter travesty.
SB'd
Make it income based.
There may be more than just race affecting that demographic in the admissions process.
I actually heard Harvard is discriminating against right-handed people. Thoughts?
are the main beneficiaries of this going to be asians or white people too if it succeeds?
Asians. They get screwed. In reality the schools will just adjust their application and do what they want.
Have people actually wondered how many students at HYP actually deserve to be at HYP? especially international students. How many international asian students actually wrote their essay or took their SAT's? How many undergrads actually pursued the activities they mention on their profile? how many of them are still pursuing those activities during undergrad? It's load of BS, and the only winners are people who are actually legit or really know how to lie.
Right.
I agree that international students can be "flaky" since it's more difficult to verify their credentials. As an aside, this is WAY worse in MBA admissions, but MBA admissions is now totally farcical.
However, the % of internationals at Harvard undergrad is still only like 10-12%. The Asian-American undergrads at Harvard are absolutely incredible rock stars whose accomplishments are mind blowing. You have to be THAT good to get in as an Asian-American. The standard is so much higher for them as opposed to blacks or hispanics, and the lawsuit brief provides ample empirical evidence to support that claim. The plaintiff is essentially arguing that if blacks and hispanics with equal or worse credentials than the asians are getting into harvard while the latter are denied, then it's logical to assume that race is the decisive factor and hence a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Deleted
I am all for diversity but AA does not even come close to achieving this. Race should be dropped from all admissions and job applications.
In other news Harvard also has a class on anal sex.
Could it be argued that AA makes up for racial profiling everywhere else?
I think it's a weak argument for two reasons. First, most of the blacks and hispanics at elite colleges come from middle and upper class families, not poor ones. Second, hurting Asian-Americans (a group that had nothing to do with slavery or other racial injustices) in order to appease liberal notions of justice is quite perverse.
Harvard will just start "valuing" different experiences that the Asian kids are less likely to have. There's no way they're going to let their incoming classes become 60% Asain, 38% white, and 2% everyone else, which is roughly what it might look like if they didn't factor race in at all.
Yup. This is exactly what Harvard did to the Jews during the 1920's in order to keep them out.
@"mbavsmfin" @"John-Doe8"
Interesting. So what would you guys do about racial profiling on a broader scope? I hate when my boys get harassed by cops, so I always want them to use every advantage they can get.
(In the spirit of disclosure, AA affects me in a negative way.)
Life isn't fair, prejudices will always exist. But it shouldn't be institutionalized.
I don't have an answer on racial profiling as a whole.
Regarding admissions I would do the following:
Replace race-based AA with purely an economic one. This will be far more effective since it will enable the truly disadvantaged to get a leg up while capturing a lot of the black and hispanic populations since those groups are worse off on the whole than Asians and whites. Currently, a lot of the black/hispanic students at elite schools come from middle and upper class families, not poor ones. It is absurd that a black kid in an affluent suburb with above average grades, 2000 SAT, and mediocre extracurriculars, should get into Harvard.
Drastically cut down on legacy admits. I'm not a hypocrite here. I think legacy admission is just as egregious as AA since it is rewarding people for factors that are totally beyond one's control. Harvard's current legacy admit rate of 30% is simply too high. Yes, legacy applicants are probably stronger than the average applicant due to better genes, upbringing, more resources, etc., but 30% vs Harvard's actual acceptance rate of 5-6% is simply too big of a difference.
I would eliminate race as a factor and use either income, geography, or both. Using race is just lazy. Use Census data to construct a chart/map with poverty rates/income levels by zip code or by high school. If an application is sent in from one of those impoverished areas or high schools then throw them a few more points (equal to the weight given by race). There is zero reason to use race in the admissions process other than pure laziness.
Admittedly, Asian/white students could still probably claim disparate impact discrimination by utilizing income/geography, but it would be a lot more politically palatable.
I have no issue whatsoever with legacy admissions. So long as it's blind of the immutable things--race, religion, etc.--then I don't care how an institution admits candidates, especially if in the long-term it's better for the school financially.
I agree with most of this. Another problem with race is that it's not as clear cut as a quantifiable data such as a student's parents' income. For instance, there are tons of multi-racial kids out there, and this will become increasingly more common. As it currently stands, a half black-white kid who grew up in an affluent suburb can check the "African-American" box and get the full benefits of AA while a poor Asian kid would not. I have even seen wealthy white hispanics who have 1/8th hispanic blood check the box and get AA. It's truly perverse and terrible policy.
The Democratic Party believes that Asian-Americans cannot be disadvantaged minorities. To them, only blacks, hispanics, and gays count as groups deserving of government help. Unfortunately, the admission offices of elite schools is packed with liberals who adhere to this notion of social engineering and "justice."
I think that the benefits allotted to minorities are grossly exaggerated. Affirmative action is not used to force schools to admit unqualified students, and this is more true today than ever. It's used to help minorities when they are qualified.
Although the main reason for affirmative action is to uplift minorities and allow them to achieve a higher economic strata, these top schools are also concerned about their reputations. They're trying to get rid of the WASPy reputation that the schools still seem to have. These schools don't really "de-stigmatize" their schools in this regard if they start giving more advantages to white, even if poor, kids.
As long as "qualified" is relative to your race then, in my opinion, it should be illegal. Nobody should be given bonuses for immutable things like race. As much as I support the rights of private schools to do what they want, they take an enormous amount of federal money. It's only the rare college, such as Grove City, that takes zero federal and state money. If they take no federal or state money then I'm ok with them doing whatever they want.
Problem is that the black and hispanic students at these schools are NOT as qualified as their Asian counterparts. This would not be an issue if they were all somewhat similar in terms of credentials. This is not the case, and anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring ample empirical data.
Top universities like Harvard are not in the business of admitting the smartest, brightest people. Why do we pretend we live in a meritocracy when we don't? Just because you have a 3.7+ GPA, 2250+ SAT, leadership, and decent extracurricular activities doesn't and shouldn't grant you a spot at Harvard. Are you serious? If Harvard went out of their way to admit every candidate with this criteria, they'd probably have enough people to fill their freshman class five times over. This whole "Blacks and Latinos on average are less academically qualified than Asians" is quite frankly stupid given that fact. Who cares? Blacks and Latinos generally make up less than 10% of the incoming student pool. They're not taking Asians spots, Caucasians are. Why don't you point towards the other 60% of students who also get preferential treatment and who, on average, are not as academically qualified as the general applicant pool. You know, like recruited athletes, legacies, women, queers, geographically rural individuals and let's not forget mega rich donor guy's kid.
If you're gonna advocate for dropping one type of preferential treatment, you better do so for all.
I get it. The college admissions process is really unfair to Asian Americans. It sucks. I think race-based AA should be amended, although I am not a fan of the socioeconomic status AA. Using Blacks and Latinos as a means to address an issue about college admissions and the Asian American community is the wrong way to go.
The funny thing is is that these people who are against affirmative action, the people who want race equality, are ironically advocating for something that would lead to even more racial inequality. Let's say that we make it a truly meritocratic process: Asians would dominate the top universities. I don't have any statistics, but I know for a fact that Asians tend to be at least twice, perhaps three times, as qualified as the typical white ivy applicant. Having a university that's 65% Asian doesn't really help the whole racial equality issue, does it? I would like a truly meritocratic process, but there's no way universities would let this happen. If you want a meritocracy, go over to the United Kingdom, which bases admissions almost entirely off of objective factors like test scores.
The fact of the matter is that applying to colleges is not an entirely objective, qualification-based process. There are lots of subjective factors that come to play, like essays, recs, extra-curriculars, etc. If a Hispanic has an inspirational story on hardship, how do you figure out how to weigh that in terms of qualification? Because those kinds of stories can make an applicant look a lot more attractive than a cookie-cutter, white kid from the suburbs.
I stand by what I said when the benefits allotted to minorities are grossly exaggerated. I was a Hispanic from a single-parent, low-income family who had a 2300 SAT score, 4.88 weighted GPA, all IB classes, leadership, lots of national business and journalism awards, state awards, etc. I wasn't a superstar, but I think I was comparable to a lot of Asian applicants. I still got rejected from Yale, rejected from Columbia, and waitlisted at Harvard. I've heard the widely-propagated stories about a black guy with a 1900 SAT who miraculously gets accepted at a top ivy, but those incidences are not the norm by any means.
First, let's not engage in hyperbole. Even if Harvard ended AA, it would not be 65% Asian. It would be higher than its current 18-20%, sure, but let's not grossly exaggerate here.
Second, there are a number of assumptions here that I have heard numerous times. Why do liberals argue that having "too many" Asians is bad and not indicative of diversity, but they have no problem with lots of blacks and hispanics being represented. As a matter of fact, we cannot stop hearing from liberals that there's never enough blacks or hispanics. However, you never hear them say the same about Asians even though Asians are not well represented in most institutions (universities are the one exception). There is a disturbing theme here that somehow Asians are not what "proper" diversity looks like.
Furthermore, you make an implicit assumption that somehow Asian applicants are one-dimensional geeks with high grades and scores but nothing else to offer. Once again there is no empirical evidence to back this up. Many of the Asian-Americans who apply to these schools are well aware of the high standards imposed upon them and have strong records across academics and extracurriculars. And yes, many of them even (gasp!) play SPORTS!
You are also attacking a strawman here. No one ever said that admission to an elite college is or should be based purely upon numbers. I would be opposed to such a system. This lawsuit is NOT arguing that Harvard should resort to an exam-based admission system. Rather, it is arguing that Harvard is not meeting the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in the Fisher case, mainly that it should use race to achieve diversity only if race-neutral measures are not possible and that racial quotas cannot be used. The seminal 1978 Bakke case also contends that race can only be one of many factors, never a decisive one. I think the brief has pretty strong arguments that Harvard is not abiding by these standards.
Asians account for 5% of the total population but 25% of the incoming Harvard class. On a relative basis, they are the most represented race in the admissions process. The SAT scores based on income are all equal. By demographics SAT scores are higher for admitted Asians. Once again, there are more likely additional factors at play. Harvard doesn't want a one-dimensional student body similar to schools in NYC with entrance exams. Furthermore, having seen the great lengths international Asian students will go to, forging transcripts and beyond, an SAT score is proctored and unlikely to be manipulated. It would make sense that more verifiable metrics would hold a greater weight, for both of those reasons. If you're one dimensional, you better be very good at that one dimension. If you're applicant pool is known to cheat, more weight is put on a verifiable measure.
As you mentioned above the 'one-dimensional' argument is a stereotype and there are probably quite a few that it doesn't apply to. I'd argue that is why instead of accounting for only 5% of the incoming class or less, they account for 25%.
Asians are 18-21% of Harvard, not 25%. Also the Asian international population at Harvard is quite small. The vast majority are Asian-Americans.
Jews are more represented on a relative basis than any ethnic group. They are 2% of the U.S. population but account for a good 30% or so of the Ivy League. But of course, I never hear liberals talking about there being too many Jews.
Universities are usually the most liberal places imaginable. It would be foolish to expect liberal places to not be racist and biased. AA papers over the problem and let's these places think they are helping. Asian people are too successful and hard working, hence why they need to be punished.
Liberal institutions are some of the most racist and intolerant places in the country. To the liberal admission officers, a black or hispanic applicant (even if they are well-off) are automatically deemed "valuable" because they bring "refreshing perspective" and "diversity" to the school. If you are Asian, sorry bro, you're fucked. The liberals don't give a fuck about you.
On a tangential note. My best friend works for MBB consulting, and we were discussing AA recently. AA is used at not just schools but at companies as well. While discussing candidates, the recruiter said, "Ok. Help me identify MBA candidates who will add diversity to our firm." My buddy said "well this guy is Asian-American." The recruiter said, "Let's get this straight. Asians are not considered minorities, and we don't consider them as adding diversity to the firm." My friend was absolutely flabbergasted. He also admitted that they have to lower their standards for blacks and hispanics during the case interviews while Asians have to be virtually flawless to get an offer. He told me, "This pisses me off. OK, so we give them AA for school admission but continue to give them a free pass for the rest of their lives?"
People forget how we slaved out the Chinese to build the railroads (coolies) or how we interned the Japanese. Horrible events yet hasn't stopped either at all. Even in the face of racist opposition Asians continue to come to the US (largely LEGALLY) and embody the American spirit.
TNA, shhhh!!! You can't bring up actual history and facts to a liberal! To a liberal's twisted worldview, ONLY blacks, hispanics, and gays are victims; whites are oppressors while Asians are sort of you know, "pseudo-whites." A black person whose parents are doctors has endured MASSIVE wrongdoings while the poor Asian kid had a swimmingly fanciful life devoid of hardships!
I know. What's funny is most AA goes to rich Africans who suffered non of the injustice AA is supposed to help with. Just so people in Ivory towers can feel good about themselves.
Additionally, one can make a good argument that Chinese people suffered as much as anyone during Mao and the various communist purges. Or how about the Japanese who got Nuked. Or Pol Pot and Cambodians. Or Vietnamese.
You give an Indian kid a 20 year old math book that a dog has pissed on and a piece of chalk and he will turn out to be a doctor.
Yup. I know wealthy Nigerians who got affirmative action. As well as wealthy people who are 1/8th hispanic but checked the "hispanic" box and got in through AA. It's truly disgusting.
Reading this thread, I feel like some of the posters have this caricatured version of "the liberal", which is more a projection of their thoughts and fears than representative of any real life person's views. Various declarations of what "liberals" as a entire class think, as if all left-leaning people are uniformly toeing some secretly distributed party line.
It's just as bad as the caricatured version of "right wingnut" or "war mongering neocon" that you see in left-leaning opinion echo chambers.
Re: Japanese internment - let's be honest, there were not entirely invalid concerns about where some Japanese Americans loyalties lay. See, for example, the very little publicised Niihau incident. That point from history doesn't get much airplay because it doesn't fit into the "bad reactionary racist white establishment" story,
I'm not going to delve into a discussion of WWII since that is not the purpose of this thread. But you seriously believe that FDR was justified in interning an entire population of Japanese-Americans (most of whom were born in the states) because a small subset of them were conspiring with Japan? By your reasoning, should we have interned Muslim-Americans because after all, a small number of them have sympathies towards Al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Your viewpoint further perpetuates the insidious notion that Asian-Americans are the "other," and not quite "American."
There was an American Nazi parry yet Germans weren't interned. Italians weren't interned. Pure racism.
And there is no characterisation going on. Universities tend to be extremely socially liberal and this type of faux social engineering fits their MO. Asians and Indians are minorities in the US and non white. Why are they not considered minorities when it comes to college or recruiting? Because minority is just a code word for a pre selected group of people that are to be given preferential treatment.
I understand that there is a large majority of Asian-American posters on here and largely that is why this is sucha big deal. However, if you think that getting rid of AA would allow for more Asian-American students to get better access to top tier schools or companies, aren't thinking correctly.
There is a national bias or biological imperative to want to be surrounded by people like us (so for me it'd be other white people) for each other it's pretty obvious. Many of those who have and are attending prestigious institutions tend to be white, as are the administrations and admissions boards. They WILL make sure that no matter how they have to do it they are giving and "edge" to their own race.
Don't want to diverge race? They'll go based off name. Don't want to diverge name, they'll use you extracurricular or go with those who are more readily willing to diverge name or details they are "white" as thats the predominant race which is being given an upper hand honestly. It honestly can't be fixed in the immediate future IMHO.
True. People tend to gravitate towards people like them. Different things come into play here. 1)Color of the skin. Some people are very black and white about this. 2)Their ethnicity. 3)Their race. 4)Social economic factors 5)Ways in which these individual items are traditionally grouped together. ie. What does my skin color imply about my socioeconomic status, my race and ethnicity, my culture and who I am. How does this region, group of people, etc. view me based on the above items.
Lets look at this example. Lets look at person a African American child, from within the united states of a low socioeconomic background. How do all these things impact their ability to succeed? they scored a 90/100 on a test, whereas this white male scored 95/100. The white male, lets assume was from a fairly affluent family, with both a father and mother who attended Ivy league schools. The black child however had a broken family, or maybe a complete but uneducated family, which affected his ability to somehow achieve a 95/100 like the white male on that test. I think that given the black child's accomplishments relative to the white child's, and gave them access to the same resource at my school, the black child is just as likely to match the white child, or even surpass him. I will let the black child in my school.
Now reverse the above example, switch the black child and white child's places. Now, I would let the white child in, for the same reason I let in the black child. I think he would make greater accomplishments given his background.
Now lets consider this possibility. An admissions person may actually discriminate against either the black or white child purely because of the color of their skin, were they came from etc.The black child was let in because he was black, and the white child's background was ignored.
What are you going on about? Most admissions committees are probably largely white. They give preference to URM because they want to fill diversity quotas, not because they're the same ethnicity.
I'll agree that there's a natural inclination to surround oneself with similar people.. But how can you say that they care so much about giving an edge to their own white race when they give so many advantages to non-white, underrepresented minorities? If they actually were hellbent on giving their race the edge, they would at least not be so generous with minority admissions.
Affirmative action has always been a very controversial topic among applicant to top-tier academic institutions and corporations. On the one hand, its understandable that these systems are in place to build a more "equal society" and help minorities excel because unfortunately America is very divided. on the other hand, from a candidacy perspective, i would love to see what admissions would look like if applicants did not have to put in their race/gender/ "what does their dad/mom do for a living?", what does that have to do with anything?
Great interview with Daniel Golden, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of "Price of Admissions." The book is a very well-researched scathing critique of Ivy League admissions.
http://wgbhnews.org/post/price-admission-author-puts-lawsuit-against-ha…
EPIC smackdown of affirmative action at a debate at Harvard.
http://thebadger14.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/affirmative-action/
As an overseas observer, international traveller and previous US undergrad I think my view is impartial. Asians students are hugely over represented, in every top western university.
AA is not about diversity, it's about equality. Less than 50 years ago African Americans where finally awarded full rights (vote etc), so you currently have a generation of minority college applicants whose parents/grandparents lived through extreme racism and injustice most of their lives.
We are talking about 3 centuries of slavery and other injustices, during which institutions like Harvard flourished, supporting the extreme views and policies of the time.
If such institutions give preference to a legacy, because their family has historical links and wealth (sometimes wealth generated through slavery period/practices). Equality requires you give preference to those who suffered these injustices.
I am against giving preferential treatment to legacies as well as racial groups.
In today's America it is economics and class that determine your quality of life and access to resources, not race. AA was first created to counter institutional racism because back then, its power was so great that blacks genuinely were in danger of being a permanent underclass. Over the years, institutional racism has been severely diminished. Although slavery and segregation were truly awful, continuing to rely on the historical case will result in perpetual affirmative action for all blacks, regardless of their economic status, and for all stages of school and career. That is extremely unfair.
This might be relevant here: http://nypost.com/2014/01/04/tiger-mom-some-groups-are-just-better-than…
The notorious Tiger Mom identified racial groups that are "better" than others.
Certain groups possess cultural attributes that give them a competitive advantage in today's America. Chua is not arguing that they are inherently superior people.
Brady are you Asian yourself?
Affirmative Action in Masters Programs Admissions (Originally Posted: 12/21/2012)
How common is this?
Does being a member of a URM really benefit you when it comes to Master's admissions?
Or is it more prevalent in MBA admissions?
Share your experiences with this. Thanks
I'm URM, but had decent stats, I'm not sure that it made a huge difference. I had a 680(41, 41 not happy with the quant), 3.1 GPA in a science, good W/E (long term in a research lab and one MM IB summer).
Thanks futurectdoc
As in US resident/green card holder? Yes, I talked with admissions at a tier 2 program that said they received about 750 international (mostly Chinese) applicants for about 25 slots that they aim to fill with international applicant and about 50-60 US residents for 25-30 slots. International students are tough to place due to visa hassles so there is a domestic preference. When it comes to a domestic applicant I doubt it matters too much.
If you are a woman or an American you have some help. Other than that no one cares. MSF programs are small elements of every schools overall programs. MBA's are more interested in that nonsense.
It's back: Affirmative Action goes to SCOTUS again (Originally Posted: 02/25/2012)
So, I caught this in today's paper: affirmative action is being debated by the Supreme Court again.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-24/college-affirmative-action-…
Its surprising the court decided to hear it. The Graatz v. Bollinger implied the issue was off the table for at least 2 decades, and there is no remedy for this particular case. Kagan was responsible enough to recuse herself.
I dislike judicial activism, but America seems to have passed the buck to the courts here.
Without making this too controversial, what do you all think should be done? I think some sort of affirmative action should exist, but should be income/opportunity based. Current policy actually benefits the minorities least likely to experience racism: a member of a minority group is much more likely to experience discrimination in Camden than Princeton.
A black kid in the ghetto has much more in common with a white kid in the ghetto than he does with the offspring of Will Smith. And in the case of a poor student, coming from a broken home will have a far larger impact on academic performance than skin color.
And this brings us to Wall Street. Should diversity program exist? Are they inappropriate once you are out of college, and should they be based on race/gender/sexual orientation as they are now?
affirmative action largely benefits wealthy blacks, white hispanics and white women. don't take my word for it, do the homework on this.
AA should be annihilated root and branch.
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/game-over-for-aa
Did not see that, sorry for repost.
Harvard hides behind affirmative action (Originally Posted: 11/12/2015)
Surprised a certain notorious user didn't also try to take a school to court for reverse-discrimination. (link at bottom.)
I guess I can understand affirmative action for undergrad but whats the excuse for graduate lvl. Havent they been given a boost already? Just a thought.
That's an interesting point. I've never thought about it from this perspective.
Yeah a good argument however the facts remain that even fewer percentages of minorities go to grad school. Which could be a social issue as much as economic. This largely is due to the fact that their minority parents on average have significantly lower net worth compared to those that are white and also the fact that grad school is usually much more than undergrad. Not to mention the opportunity cost of grad school when you don't have much of a support system at all.
I've also thought that given the MLT program, but Human Capital makes good points.
What I'm curious about is the average income levels of white vs black vs Asian etc. students at undergrad and graduate levels.
Also - what's the logic behind Affirmative Action being a thing, when Asian Americans came to be farmers and die building the Transcontinentll Railroad and are now on the other end of Affirmative Action? Would kinda suck to be a poor Cambodian or Vietnamese American and expected to outcompete affluent kids of whatever race, just 'cos you have yellow skin.
Affirmative action should be paired heavily with income and location. A black student from a ghetto with a family income of $26k should get some leverage, but at most ivies, the people gaining the leverage are minorities from the upper end of the wealth chain that have had largely the same advantages as their white/Asian constituents. At some point (family income of >$70k? and a decent education), race should be largely irrelevant.
Just my opinion, but the undergraduate/graduate spin is an interesting thought.
hey the real max and Angus Macgyver and whoever else is interested in the article here is the link from bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/harvard-aggressively-… I have no clue why whoever front-paged my thread decided to omit the link.
Even black families that are relatively well to do are typically worse off than whites
http://www.patricksharkey.net/images/pdf/Sharkey_AJS_2014.pdf
"the average African-American household earning more than $100,000 per year lives in a neighborhood with higher levels of disadvantage and spatial disadvantage than the average white household earning less than $30,000 per year."
on page 927
Provident quis illo unde cumque iusto odit est et. Reiciendis est dolor aut architecto temporibus quis. Sint magni sint quis quo quos et est.
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...
Autem repudiandae est quia consequuntur maxime pariatur qui. Nulla enim et odio ex labore at. Corrupti ipsam iste laboriosam voluptas et ut eligendi.
Autem amet et totam deserunt possimus. Eos fuga voluptas sint ut est quaerat error. Nulla quae dicta quo numquam exercitationem quisquam et. Perferendis eaque tempore animi temporibus sint deserunt molestias qui. Tempore autem eum distinctio eaque. Nam quia laudantium perspiciatis repellendus.
Necessitatibus labore quia maiores. Enim dolorum et quo. Officiis quod eius maxime ipsum et totam quisquam excepturi.
Modi facere aut ab aut recusandae illum. Ut est nesciunt deserunt corrupti sit enim doloribus. Recusandae repellat aut qui velit optio sunt. Optio rerum dolores mollitia quasi reiciendis. Quis quae sed id libero. Nostrum rerum est omnis accusamus corporis odio enim. Distinctio qui voluptas impedit.
Facere quaerat labore voluptatem rem. Sit aut ipsa quis et doloribus qui voluptatem. Facere eligendi esse consequuntur repudiandae.
Sequi hic occaecati voluptatem praesentium ad quisquam. Commodi tenetur nostrum quae perferendis quos natus. Dolorum excepturi eaque qui reprehenderit quia repellat commodi vel.
Qui nihil libero ipsa eum. Sapiente animi reprehenderit et quia sint sequi explicabo. Aut voluptatum dolorem consequatur qui occaecati sunt beatae.
Dolor est amet et cum. Explicabo et commodi voluptatibus nihil. Quas laudantium blanditiis aliquam est. Tempore enim aspernatur temporibus fuga nobis animi. Voluptas sit sit consequatur id ut animi.
Non consequatur corrupti repudiandae assumenda blanditiis. Quas eos nesciunt est quia eum. Id exercitationem sequi ut officiis excepturi totam. Eligendi ab voluptatem ipsa id dolor voluptates explicabo enim.
Ipsa nihil aut eligendi et non. Quia consequatur officia accusamus dolor quia.
Sapiente ut et magni repellendus. Quam voluptatem ad enim et. Nam voluptatem quia illum quaerat. Qui odit eum exercitationem. Earum sed iure eos culpa harum id est voluptatem. Voluptatem amet fugit ut.
Saepe nulla temporibus rem quidem fugiat est. Deleniti ut placeat doloremque hic maxime eligendi est voluptates. Facilis magnam odit quia labore dolor vero. Ipsa velit quasi repellendus reiciendis ea saepe tempora repellendus. Facilis nihil soluta non occaecati rem occaecati et inventore. Reiciendis facilis asperiores ut alias praesentium quasi voluptas.
Ipsa aliquid recusandae commodi deserunt. Officia necessitatibus neque aliquam id. Et omnis qui ipsum vel a dolores. Eveniet dolor est natus necessitatibus repellat. Eius consequatur commodi repudiandae qui nisi necessitatibus earum.
Voluptates soluta qui voluptatem quo consequatur ut. Modi voluptatibus voluptate ipsam aliquam et qui. Nisi in iure necessitatibus.