"Fewer Asians Need Apply"

Hi All,

I've read several forums, discussions, and arguments on WSO on getting into the target schools, what it takes to get in, affirmative action, diversity, equity et al, but here's an in-depth look at the admissions process and how American Asians are suppressed because they over-perform as a group. I know that you don't need yet another article on this - we all know what's up, but I thought this one was comprehensive, well-written, and would augment the discourse. The article is long but worth reading in it's entirety. [Note that the article references American nationals of Asian ethnicity for undergrad admissions, not foreign nationals or grad schools; and also, I'm not Asian]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/fewer-asians-nee...

Hedge Fund Interview Course

  • 814 questions across 165 hedge funds. Crowdsourced from over 500,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Sample Pitches and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring hedge fund professionals just like you.

Comments (125)

Nov 14, 2017

.

Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 1
Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 1
Nov 14, 2017

.

    • 1
Oct 26, 2017

You're 1/5 of the world population calm down.

    • 4
    • 12
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Oct 27, 2017

What does that have to do with anything? And they're only ~5% of the US population - which is what the article talks about. And I'm not Asian.

Oct 26, 2017

3/5ths of the world's population just FYI...

    • 5
Oct 27, 2017
TippyTop11:

You're 1/5 of the world population calm down.

This is the problem--people should not be categorized by their race. We are all individuals with diverse life experiences. I hate, detest, abhor the idea that individuals are being forcefully categorized by, frankly, genetically unimportant traits that constitute "race." Why is it so hard for our society to judge people on their own personal, individual qualities?

Best Response
Oct 26, 2017

Affirmative action, at its core, is a racist policy since it subjects applicants to different admission standards based purely on race. Asians are subjected to higher standards, no doubt about it. Of course, liberals don't care since Asians do not fall into their bucket of "victim minorities."

    • 57
    • 8
Oct 27, 2017

I think you're just using Asians as a weapon to fight the good fight of correcting the world according to your own perceptions. You don't want immigration so how can you be interested in Asians coming to America to attend Harvard?

I went to school with a large Asian population. I took two years of Chinese also, so I spent some time in the culture and made some Chinese friends. It's utterly depressing to see them on campuses. Most of their friends if not all of them are Asian, the games and interests they share are mostly things originating from their homes, they never really even eat anything outside of what they eat at home. As a large group, they represent their Asian homes, not America or ideas that American institutions were established to progress.

I hate it if this sounds racist or unsympathetic, but it's true. Kids that I met who are ethnically Eastern Asian but are natural born American citizens are much more identifiable in terms of American interests and diversity, especially if their parents took the time to involve their kids that way. We all liked the same things and could share the same meals, etc. But to act as though your position is that you care about Asians is bullshit. Yes, some Asians, if not a lot of them, should be granted with spots, but trying to expand the number to include every person that is simply good in math is just non-sense, especially when you're only goal is probably just to Bannon the shit out of the world.

    • 10
    • 11
Oct 30, 2017

The article is focused on American-born Asians, and for college admissions (as well as census and other aggregate data), Asians also includes East Indians, and other South Asians. Foreign nationals are another story and are significant proportion only in grad schools.

I don't see why 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants must be penalized for the success of their demographic groups. Similar things were said of a sub-set of Asians - Indians are "too insular, only good at taking orders and not leaders, not innovative, lack creativity" etc. but they have done and continue to do well in tech and sell-side capital markets.

@iBankedUp - do you have psychic powers or have you just assumed the intentions of others?

    • 2
Oct 27, 2017

It focuses on American born Asians of immigrant parents. And most of these people sound Eastern Asian given the descriptions sound like similar stories of people whom I've met. What I don't understand, though, is why the attack on AA? Policies that are set to discriminate against Asians are to help whites keep their number high. That doesn't impact AA students.

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

Policies that are set to discriminate against Asians are to help whites keep their number high. That doesn't impact AA students.

This point can't be made enough, and this includes legacy admits.

    • 2
    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

I think you're just using Asians as a weapon to fight the good fight of correcting the world according to your own perceptions. You don't want immigration so how can you be interested in Asians coming to America to attend Harvard?

I went to school with a large Asian population. I took two years of Chinese also, so I spent some time in the culture and made some Chinese friends. It's utterly depressing to see them on campuses. Most of their friends if not all of them are Asian, the games and interests they share are mostly things originating from their homes, they never really even eat anything outside of what they eat at home. As a large group, they represent their Asian homes, not America or ideas that American institutions were established to progress.

I hate it if this sounds racist or unsympathetic, but it's true. Kids that I met who are ethnically Eastern Asian but are natural born American citizens are much more identifiable in terms of American interests and diversity, especially if their parents took the time to involve their kids that way. We all liked the same things and could share the same meals, etc. But to act as though your position is that you care about Asians is bullshit. Yes, some Asians, if not a lot of them, should be granted with spots, but trying to expand the number to include every person that is simply good in math is just non-sense, especially when you're only goal is probably just to Bannon the shit out of the world.

Wow! This post deserves the WSO award for asinine post of the year.

You either have not read my other posts or are deliberately misconstruing it. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (look up the definition of "illegal") and want to see legal immigration reformed to prioritize the entry of educated and skilled foreign nationals. To say that this position is tantamount to not wanting immigration is pretty comical.

What's funny is the irony underlying your post. You accuse me of not wanting immigrants in America and then launch into a diatribe stereotyping Asians. This would be the equivalent of someone writing a paragraph talking about how the blacks he sees are dirty, criminal, and love watermelons. You see what I did there? Yeah, absurd stereotypes are just that.

You also misrepresent my position on affirmative action. At no point did I ever say that only those good at math should get into elite college (another Asian stereotype).

Thanks bro for making me laugh today.

    • 7
    • 3
Oct 27, 2017

When you say you're opposed to "illegal immigration" but are in favor of "immigration..to prioritize the entry of educated and skilled foreign nationals," means that you don't want certain immigrants in this country. You don't want your lawn cut by a poor immigrant but rather you want that job to go to your town friend. Why not argue for work visas for immigrants that will mind the fields? This is an economic boom for this country we are not tapping and the number of visas to these people pales in comparison to other immigrant classes.

I didn't stereotype Asians because I said that I've met and befriended Asian classmates who were interested in friends outside of their racial cohort. It's an anecdote to describe what is meant by the untypical student who's a better fit in school. Fit is a test for whites, blacks, Asians, at all levels including academic and professional. Crying about race is reductionist bullshit to the problems that are being addressed. By the way, the black enrollment at schools typically hovers around a specific rate just as the Asian rate of enrollment at top universities.

What is your stance on Affirmative Action then? Why is it racist to dilute the white population with racial minorities? Whites disproportionately benefited from a system of oppression. And, if research is correct about diversity, the only path to put this in action is to develop a standard that is non-white for recruiting non-white individuals.

    • 4
    • 11
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

When you say you're opposed to "illegal immigration" but are in favor of "immigration..to prioritize the entry of educated and skilled foreign nationals," means that you don't want certain immigrants in this country.

No, it means that in a rapidly automating world, we need fewer and fewer low-skilled laborers and more high-skilled workers.

iBankedUp:

You don't want your lawn cut by a poor immigrant but rather you want that job to go to your town friend. Why not argue for work visas for immigrants that will mind the fields? This is an economic boom for this country we are not tapping and the number of visas to these people pales in comparison to other immigrant classes.

This is what most of us have been arguing for, but the Left is content with open borders.

iBankedUp:

Crying about race is reductionist bullshit to the problems that are being addressed.

So you address "fit" by labeling people with the last name "Chang" as having a certain personality type? That's amazing. My brother and I have the same last name but we have wildly different personalities. Talk about "reductionist..."

iBankedUp:

What is your stance on Affirmative Action then? Why is it racist to dilute the white population with racial minorities? Whites disproportionately benefited from a system of oppression. And, if research is correct about diversity, the only path to put this in action is to develop a standard that is non-white for recruiting non-white individuals.

AA doesn't succeed in correcting socioeconomic differences, and even if it did (it doesn't) using race to categorize people is evil.

Oct 30, 2017

I kept ignoring you. But in my responses to what Rufus was saying, who is more clear of thought and logical, you kept responding. I noticed that those posts ended up getting a hefty amount of MS on them, so I'll respond directly to your post, just because, eh fuck it.

Dances with Dachshunds:

No, it means that in a rapidly automating world, we
need fewer and fewer low-skilled laborers and more high-skilled workers.

This is what most of us have been arguing for, but the Left is content with open borders.

Look, your logic is complete trash. You use no linear train of thought. When it comes border security and immigration policy, you lean towards the build the wall camp. Yet, on here, you seem to be in favor of immigration. There's no logical case I can get out of your arguments on immigration, because you say that it's immoral to allow people to come over in numbers, but not if they're Asian. If it's about Asians applying whether here or immigrating, doesn't matter, all you care about is making the argument against AA. You will say that it's illegal immigration you're against, but you won't argue for changing policy on work visas for low-skilled workers. If you're for some immigration, you should be picking the battle that leaves money on the table that could be picked up with more lower-skilled work visas. The tech industry is already fighting the fight for educated people to come over. Making this argument about the need for immigrants to fill tech jobs is a strawman.

Dances with Dachshunds:

So you address "fit" by labeling people with the last name "Chang" as having a certain personality type? That's amazing. My brother and I have the same last name but we have wildly different personalities. Talk about "reductionist..."

Again, another logical failure. Who is Chang? Where did I ever mention a fictional Chang? Funny that you're claiming that I'm using stereotypes and overtures, but it's really you who went out of your way to literally come up with a fake character in an embarrassing way to make a soft point that doesn't even address anything I even said.

Your illogical arguments are reductionist bullshit because you 100% go around the issue at hand (that of returning a helping hand to oppressed people) in order to make an argument about your morals, again. No one cares about your white guilt. People who are Asian or black both want equal opportunity in a scarce world. Reduce the number of white spots and hand them to Asians. Don't make a broad-based argument about AA, a program that was designed to help the most overly oppressed group of people in the world, just to make a point about the morals you claim to have, and your left-field interest in helping Asians. Research and past legal situations even show that Asians are supportive to AA.

Dances with Dachshunds:

AA doesn't succeed in correcting socioeconomic differences, and even if it did (it doesn't) using race to categorize people is evil.

Again, this is just illogical. You want an AA policy that is not based on race, but presumably is based on socioeconomic status. Yet, you don't even believe in AA's ability to correct socioeconomic differences. If your argument is that AA's use of race reduces the effectiveness of the policy, then that's even more insane. Race is not just the color of one's skin, it also happens to be inherited and passed down generation after generation since the evolution and beginning of man. Socioeconomic status can't possibly go as far as telling the story that race tells, and you probably are betting on that reducing the number of blacks or Hispanics getting top spots in schools.

Additionally, why not focus on the broad strokes that AA uses to paint a student. AA doesn't attract students who all say the same thing, but rather it uses a broad system to score students on everything from academics, test scores, extracurriculars, socioeconomic status, too. If you remove race from AA, that doesn't change AA except that it ensures that anyone with a race can no longer be viewed as who they are by society. That's a problem because it denies the reality that there are multiple races in this country. IT's an issue that follows through everything including work and possibly even something as far as elected office.

I know bullshit when I see it. You reek of it. The high horse that you ride makes you sound as though your intentions are better than they are. I'm looking at the full picture and basing my view on how can everyone succeed. Either you're ignorant to what race is or you're ignorant that this country varies across people and race is one way in which differences occur. But to exclude a very important part of someone's life, history, and personal story makes no sense and is another illogical fallacy you use when trying to claim your excellence to not "blind people of their personal circumstances".

    • 4
    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

When you say you're opposed to "illegal immigration" but are in favor of "immigration..to prioritize the entry of educated and skilled foreign nationals," means that you don't want certain immigrants in this country. You don't want your lawn cut by a poor immigrant but rather you want that job to go to your town friend. Why not argue for work visas for immigrants that will mind the fields? This is an economic boom for this country we are not tapping and the number of visas to these people pales in comparison to other immigrant classes.

I didn't stereotype Asians because I said that I've met and befriended Asian classmates who were interested in friends outside of their racial cohort. It's an anecdote to describe what is meant by the untypical student who's a better fit in school. Fit is a test for whites, blacks, Asians, at all levels including academic and professional. Crying about race is reductionist bullshit to the problems that are being addressed. By the way, the black enrollment at schools typically hovers around a specific rate just as the Asian rate of enrollment at top universities.

What is your stance on Affirmative Action then? Why is it racist to dilute the white population with racial minorities? Whites disproportionately benefited from a system of oppression. And, if research is correct about diversity, the only path to put this in action is to develop a standard that is non-white for recruiting non-white individuals.

Unless you believe in true 100% open borders where anyone can enter the United States with zero vetting and no formal legal process for entry, then you believe in restriction of some kind.

Who said anything about diluting the white population with minorities? I have zero problem with racial diversity as a whole. When it comes to admissions and jobs, we should hold applicants to the same standard. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

My position on affirmative action is simple. Replace the current system with one that gives a boost to people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, regardless of race. Not a single white person alive is responsible for slavery and very few were involved in segregation. You lump in whites as a monolithic group and hold them accountable for an original sin that they are not directly responsible for. If your argument is that blacks are poorer on average than whites because of racism, then an affirmative action system based on class will address that.

    • 6
Oct 27, 2017

Yes, I believe in a better legal immigration process. It should be one that addresses economic needs with no bias. Immigrants are not citizens until they are granted that distinction. So, anyone who is not a citizen should be restricted to some extent, but that does not mean our economics should've be improved through immigrants from all classes.

My position on AA is that white standards being applied onto blacks will most likely perpetuate the status quo. But disadvantaged people are not just poor--they also come from a background that is different in virtually every way from the "advantaged" socioeconomic backgrounds. Using family income as a delimiter would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The point is, you're trying to decide the future of blacks instead of getting out of black people's way to allow blacks to determine their own future. Current AA addresses the issue by applying a different standard at academic institutions and blacks determine the course on everything else. To me, it's a standard that promotes competition since it allows people to compete with people from their own race, vs interracial competition.

Again, the racial premium whites receive from centuries of oppression and inherited wealth, status, and culture, makes it unfair for any non-white person to have to compete with a white person, in my opinion.

The other issue: how do you determine who gets in if it's strictly based on socioeconomics and no race? Asians might not fit in and neither will blacks. Only poor whites would get the spot because on a relative basis, all whites come from similar Christian backgrounds and hold similar values.

    • 2
    • 5
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

My position on AA is that white standards being applied onto blacks will most likely perpetuate the status quo.

Most of us support AA, just not race-based AA. It's ok to have varying standards for people based on their own individual backgrounds.

iBankedUp:

But disadvantaged people are not just poor--they also come from a background that is different in virtually every way from the "advantaged" socioeconomic backgrounds. Using family income as a delimiter would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I don't get this point at all. If you're not poor then how are you disadvantaged? If a black kid is living in Montgomery County, MD and a white kid is living in Montgomery County, MD, they attend the same school and their parents have approximately the same income, then where is the material disadvantage?

iBankedUp:

The point is, you're trying to decide the future of blacks instead of getting out of black people's way to allow blacks to determine their own future. Current AA addresses the issue by applying a different standard at academic institutions and blacks determine the course on everything else. To me, it's a standard that promotes competition since it allows people to compete with people from their own race, vs interracial competition.

I'm reading the words but not understanding the English. I don't see the cogent argument for AA here.

iBankedUp:

Again, the racial premium whites receive from centuries of oppression and inherited wealth, status, and culture, makes it unfair for any non-white person to have to compete with a white person, in my opinion.

Uh, this is why we support AA based on socioeconomic status. There are tens of millions of poor white people, too. Isn't it pretty racist to associate poverty with black people? Two of my hiring managers in my 20s were black women, and they were really talented. Black people are more than capable and aren't all poor.

iBankedUp:

The other issue: how do you determine who gets in if it's strictly based on socioeconomics and no race? Asians might not fit in and neither will blacks. Only poor whites would get the spot because on a relative basis, all whites come from similar Christian backgrounds and hold similar values.

Huh? The U.S. has pretty good statistics from the Census Bureau that could help admission committees gauge which high schools are especially poor. Tax returns to prove income. This stuff isn't hard.

Oct 27, 2017

Number 1, kids in Montgomery County are not poor. I know you're inheriting a fortune, but simply because one does not have a trust fund does not make one poor in my opinion.

My belief is that nature plays something around 50% in determining success. But the other 45-50% is nurture. So, blacks might be naturally capable of succeeding, but are probably not nurtured to succeed in a large collection of cases. I'm a firm believer in competition bringing out the best. The numbers who benefit genetically might be the same across the racial divide, but the level of nurturing might vary by a lot across Asians, whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. Different standards on race seem to take this into account. So, AA promotes intra-racial competition, which discounts the impact that whites have in applying what standards they deem most desirable onto non-white people.

There are probably more poor white people than poor blacks. That's why a socioeconomic standard will probably benefit whites more than blacks. With no racial standard, whites will probably select more poor whites just based on selection bias.

Yes, a lot of non-poor blacks are very capable. Poor blacks struggle often times, hence where my nurture theory originates.

Again, you find out who's poor, doesn't mean a socioeconomic standard will accurately reflect the racial diversity in this country.

    • 2
    • 2
Oct 27, 2017

I'm still baffled by your position. Are you saying then that affirmative action SHOULD benefit black people who are already wealthy? That's the point we're making--Colin Powell's kid does not need the benefit of race-based affirmative action. Poor people or people in other tough circumstances (not always poverty) could use a special boost, but using race as a metric to help or harm people, blind of their personal circumstances, makes no sense and actually doesn't serve to boost anyone economically. There's ample evidence that AA beneficiaries are more likely to flunk out of school when they are admitted to a school out of their league, so to speak.

Oct 27, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

I'm still baffled by your position. Are you saying then that affirmative action SHOULD benefit black people who are already wealthy? That's the point we're making--Colin Powell's kid does not need the benefit of race-based affirmative action. Poor people or people in other tough circumstances (not always poverty) could use a special boost, but using race as a metric to help or harm people, blind of their personal circumstances, makes no sense and actually doesn't serve to boost anyone economically. There's ample evidence that AA beneficiaries are more likely to flunk out of school when they are admitted to a school out of their league, so to speak.

I think this is where we diverge logically. AA is not a check in the box, as I've argued before. It's a process, that should result in not benefiting Colin Powell's kids at all. Most likely, his kids will benefit form the prestige awarded to the institution that educates these famous Americans as students.

    • 2
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:
Dances with Dachshunds:

I'm still baffled by your position. Are you saying then that affirmative action SHOULD benefit black people who are already wealthy? That's the point we're making--Colin Powell's kid does not need the benefit of race-based affirmative action. Poor people or people in other tough circumstances (not always poverty) could use a special boost, but using race as a metric to help or harm people, blind of their personal circumstances, makes no sense and actually doesn't serve to boost anyone economically. There's ample evidence that AA beneficiaries are more likely to flunk out of school when they are admitted to a school out of their league, so to speak.

I think this is where we diverge logically. AA is not a check in the box, as I've argued before. It's a process, that should result in not benefiting Colin Powell's kids at all. Most likely, his kids will benefit form the prestige awarded to the institution that educates these famous Americans as students.

In your fairy tale world it's a process, but the evidence shows that it really is a quota system the results in harm to the supposed beneficiaries through higher collegiate failure rates.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/systemic/final/san...
If it were just a "process" you wouldn't see clearly unqualified candidates getting admitted and flunking out when they would succeed some place else.

Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

Yes, I believe in a better legal immigration process. It should be one that addresses economic needs with no bias. Immigrants are not citizens until they are granted that distinction. So, anyone who is not a citizen should be restricted to some extent, but that does not mean our economics should've be improved through immigrants from all classes.

My position on AA is that white standards being applied onto blacks will most likely perpetuate the status quo. But disadvantaged people are not just poor--they also come from a background that is different in virtually every way from the "advantaged" socioeconomic backgrounds. Using family income as a delimiter would be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The point is, you're trying to decide the future of blacks instead of getting out of black people's way to allow blacks to determine their own future. Current AA addresses the issue by applying a different standard at academic institutions and blacks determine the course on everything else. To me, it's a standard that promotes competition since it allows people to compete with people from their own race, vs interracial competition.

Again, the racial premium whites receive from centuries of oppression and inherited wealth, status, and culture, makes it unfair for any non-white person to have to compete with a white person, in my opinion.

The other issue: how do you determine who gets in if it's strictly based on socioeconomics and no race? Asians might not fit in and neither will blacks. Only poor whites would get the spot because on a relative basis, all whites come from similar Christian backgrounds and hold similar values.

  1. What is "white" standard? I have no earthly idea what this means.
  2. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are cultural disadvantages in addition to economic ones. You seem to be implying that affluent blacks still suffer from cultural/social setbacks and thus should be eligible for affirmative action. Even if this cultural disadvantage exists at the aggregate level, why should it override economics, which is at least quantifiable? while cultural is not. In addition, since admission occurs at the individual level rather than group, you are letting broad racial stereotypes dictate who gets preferential treatment and who doesn't.
  3. You say that AA lets "blacks determine the course on everything else." I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that once they get in, blacks can truly fulfill their potential? Several problems with this. First, studies show at AA beneficiaries perform less well on average than others due to the severe mismatching between the school they attend and their academic abilities. Second, blacks benefit from AA at every level. It's one thing if we use racial AA for undergrad and then say, "ok, you are now an adult who went to college, and it is time that you stand purely on your own merits rather than receiving preferential treatment." But as the system currently works, they receive AA for grad school and jobs, indefinitely.
  4. Yes, whites on the whole did benefit from racism, but admission occurs at the individual level. You are arguing for effectively punishing white applicants because of factors totally beyond their control.
Oct 27, 2017
  1. I think that due to selection bias, non-whites will always be ruled out if you have one standard. Whites, as the racial majority, will always be the standard. So, how is that exactly fair if you're non-white?
  2. No. I think that poor blacks are disadvantaged culturally and economically. Affluent blacks aren't necessarily disadvantaged culturally or economically, but there is again selection bias against blacks, whether affluent or poor. My point on the economic divide is one that I think affects the cultural one by magnifying the differences. Poor blacks are less likely to grow up with whites and are thus not exposed to a culture that differs from their own, whereas the opposite is true for more affluent blacks. The cultural divide is again those elemental effects that cause one to emotionally or psychologically disconnect due to distractions or insecurities of feeling like an outsider, such as black's love of basketball vs white's love of Shakespeare (just to use some extreme example to make a point, which is a stereotype and I'm not saying either is captured in the respective cohort). And the whole argument on this specific point of topic is to say that you need both fit and talent to truly succeed. Those who have it will win, and don't need a strictly socioeconomic based process to outshine their more affluent peers. The one that uses race benefits all of the diversity traits not captured by household income.

Research shows that diversity is an economic advantage. I'm arguing that AA does promote diversity.

  1. Again, I still think AA is about racial disparity at its essence. To me, a black never becomes a white and the opposite is true. So, if the racial divide is what AA is targeted at, then it doesn't stop because a person becomes an adult. But I'll digress on this because this seems like a different issue.
  2. Whites are not punished because they don't get in. No one is blocking whites from applying or receiving admission. Everyone has a chance of getting in. While the parameters used to judge who receives admission seems to vary by race, it doesnt appear to be completely unlinked to empirical evidence on cultural norms around academics.
    • 3
    • 2
Oct 27, 2017
iBankedUp:

1. I think that due to selection bias, non-whites will always be ruled out if you have one standard. Whites, as the racial majority, will always be the standard. So, how is that exactly fair if you're non-white?

  1. No. I think that poor blacks are disadvantaged culturally and economically. Affluent blacks aren't necessarily disadvantaged culturally or economically, but there is again selection bias against blacks, whether affluent or poor. My point on the economic divide is one that I think affects the cultural one by magnifying the differences. Poor blacks are less likely to grow up with whites and are thus not exposed to a culture that differs from their own, whereas the opposite is true for more affluent blacks. The cultural divide is again those elemental effects that cause one to emotionally or psychologically disconnect due to distractions or insecurities of feeling like an outsider, such as black's love of basketball vs white's love of Shakespeare. And the whole argument on this specific point of topic is to say that you need both fit and talent to truly succeed. Those who have it will win, and don't need a strictly socioeconomic based process to outshine their more affluent peers. The one that uses race benefits all of the diversity traits not captured by household income.

Research shows that diversity is an economic advantage. I'm arguing that AA does promote diversity.

  1. Again, I still think AA is about racial disparity at its essence. To me, a black never becomes a white and the opposite is true. So, if the racial divide is what AA is targeted at, then it doesn't stop because a person becomes an adult. But I'll digress on this because this seems like a different issue.
  2. Whites are not punished because they don't get in. No one is blocking whites from applying or receiving admission. Everyone has a chance of getting in. While the parameters used to judge who receives admission seems to vary by race, it doesnt appear to be completely unlinked to empirical evidence on cultural norms around academics.

Thanks for the clarification. I now have a better understanding of your position.

  1. I agree that social and cultural tastes are largely dictated by whites since they are 65% of the U.S. population. I still fail to grasp how this applies when it comes to admission. For instance, without AA, the percentage of Asian students at schools always goes up, but they obviously aren't white.
  2. I agree that poor minorities are less likely to live around whites and will be more segregated. By your reasoning, should poor Asians also receive AA since they are also less likely to grow around whites? I get the linkage between cultural isolation and economic deprivation and how that affects one's ability to assimilate into "elite" mainstream American society, which is dominated by whites. If that's the argument, I don't see why AA should be given to all disadvantaged minorities.
  3. So you are basically admitting that it's ok for certain applicants to be held to higher standards in order to achieve racial diversity. What is the correct amount of diversity in a given institution? Would each ethnic group need to be identical to their overall makeup of the U.S. population even when the group is on aggregate less qualified?
  4. It's not punishment per se. But the playing field is not equal if people are held to different admission standards. Race based AA basically says the following: "Because whites oppressed blacks a long time ago, we are going to hold you to higher standards just because you are white, even though you had nothing to do with these racial injustices." Moreover, if historical oppression is the justification, why do Latinos get AA when they did not suffer from the same discrimination as blacks did? Or for that matter, African blacks whose ancestors were not slaves?
Oct 27, 2017
  1. I agree. But it applies to admission because Asians are either smarter by nature or nurtured to work and study harder at an earlier age or both. I don't know which one is true, but either way, I would like to think that a higher academic standards should not be hard to achieve. You could argue that the standards could come down by 40 points, or something. But to say that there is no benefit in the current stance on academics, or that it is a racist policy is just baseless, unless you are Asian and want to rig the system to favor yourself.
  2. Of course I think Asians should be able to benefit from AA. I'm arguing against stripping away AA or changing its standards because I see the failure in doing so. But, any minority should have the chance to benefit from AA, but again it's a process. If the process ends up benefiting one individual over another, I just hope it's working properly and allocates benefits appropriately. But I still think that looking at how culture affects different races differently, is not equal to racial subjugation.
  3. AA is a cultural standing and 1960s Civil Rights policy. Just like all policy, it's only given guidance by government. But, it's actively enacted in individual public or private institutions. So I think the makeup should be reasonable but based on what each institution sees fit as making up their respective cultures.
  4. I don't think that enslavement is the real definition of what's necessarily oppression or hardship. The truth is that slavery was the case with the black American. But hardship that may warrant Affirmative Action to improve opportunity could come in different forms depending on cohort. Remember, whites still makeup a larger share of demographics than any other group at most of these institutions. I'm not saying make other groups equal or more represented.
    • 2
    • 1
Oct 28, 2017

As an Asian-American I've never understood the White privilege argument. Are whites on average more well off in socioeconomic terms than African-Americans? Sure. But Indian-Americans have a higher socioeconomic status than whites and have experienced little in the way of systematic racism or oppression in this country. Doesn't that mean they have "privilege" too?

Also to justify AA on the grounds of "racial premiums" is absurd. Go to West Virginia or Eastern Kentucky and tell me what special privileges people out there get from being white. Answer: None. Yet they get screwed by an admissions policy that prioritizes the color of one's skin instead of socioeconomic status.

    • 1
Oct 28, 2017
derekne:

As an Asian-American I've never understood the White privilege argument. Are whites on average more well off in socioeconomic terms than African-Americans? Sure. But Indian-Americans have a higher socioeconomic status than whites and have experienced little in the way of systematic racism or oppression in this country. Doesn't that mean they have "privilege" too?

Also to justify AA on the grounds of "racial premiums" is absurd. Go to West Virginia or Eastern Kentucky and tell me what special privileges people out there get from being white. Answer: None. Yet they get screwed by an admissions policy that prioritizes the color of one's skin instead of socioeconomic status.

I never even used the term "white privilege," so, I'll just ignore the bait. What I will say is that any "privilege" afforded to white people is not measured in income alone. But the stats are not all that comparable due to higher numbers of whites and x times more immigration, leading to more randomness in the data set.

Any white people in WV or other mid-western parts of this country are most likely property and landowners. That's an underrated benefit and the largest source of wealth for the middle class. And I always tend to believe that social networks put one closer to people whom one would need to meet to be successful and more than we seem to think. So, it's likely that while those kids live in WV or Kentucky, there are still networks to success.

If you take the girl who sued the University of Texas as an example, her misfortune was really that she didn't qualify. The policy was that UT would except students in the top 7% of their class, but mathematically she couldn't possibly meet this requirement. So, go to another school. Transfer into a larger school before you graduate if it's that important. But her entitlement to go to a school where she didn't even seem to understand it's requirements before applying is just fucking silly. How the most simple thing in the world butted her out is not the craziest matrix that could've happened. It looks like mere technicality, but in the end, is being number one of 10 really more impressive than 1 of 1,000?

The level of entitlement that this country and this world has degenerated into is finally coming down on all of us. People are starving in other parts of the world, and we're fighting over trivial matters, mostly because we seem to be misinterpreting the loads and loads of information hitting us everyday. Grow a fucking pair, do what makes you happy, but have a wider focus and less entitlement seeking. Life isn't going to be perfect because you have a perfect SAT and never smoked a cigarette once, just to try it.

    • 3
Oct 27, 2017

Chinese are people too. They deserve just as much a shot as everyone else!

    • 4
    • 2
Jul 20, 2018

worst shitpost ever. dont come in here with a pic of Xi and not expect monkey shit

Oct 28, 2017

This times one thousand. No idea why my fellow Asian-Americans still vote for democrats at the rate they do.

Jul 20, 2018

I also think it puts the actual concept of accepting great students out of the window also these people accepted from affirmative action can be likely to drop out due to it being to hard rather than accepting somebody who can handle it

Oct 26, 2017

white people are the biggest racists on earth right from native americans to discrimination of asians and black people just because Donald Trump is back they think they can show their true colors . this is why America sucks these days.

D.I.

    • 16
Oct 26, 2017

That's fucking bullshit. Everybody can be racist. I am Asian and some of the biggest racists are other Asians. There are many Asian parents would disown their children if they marry a black person. Go back to Huffpost.

    • 9
Oct 27, 2017

HUFFINGTON POST is the only LEGITIMATE news source. Take all of the other FAKE NEWS and shove it up your ass!

    • 2
Oct 28, 2017

This. Think Americans hate muslims? Talk to any Hindu that live in a state that borders Pakistan and you'll hear a lot worse.

Oct 27, 2017
oligarch:

white people are the biggest racists on earth right from native americans to discrimination of asians and black people just because Donald Trump is back they think they can show their true colors . this is why America sucks these days.

Ok. You're obviously a troll because this is what you wrote in a thread I started.

"Somewhere far away from
a) illegal immigrants
b) black people enamored with hip hop culture
c) blue collar workers
d)anybody who drives a pick-up truck
e)people without a college degree or any sort of history of achievement
f) white trash
g) people who've never been outside the USA
i)deeply religious people
j) anyone with a tattoo visible when casual clothes"

https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/hypo-youre-...

    • 3
    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Oct 27, 2017

There is so much to talk about and this topic is not the first time it has been discussed.

  • If we talk about test scores and performance, anything involving a test, I can strongly agree that asians are waaay better.
  • In terms of cramming, memorizing information in a certain amount of time, yeah, asians are good at that.

Actually, I think asians focus a lot in improving their ability to learn but tend to forget about all the other qualities. Now, lets look at one of the example's provided in this article.

Henry Park's immigrant parents scrimped to send him to prep school at Groton, where he graduated 14th in his class, with a 1,560 SAT score, ran cross-country, and coauthored a published paper in an academic journal--but Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Stanford, and MIT rejected him. Jamie Lee had perfect SAT scores, a 162 IQ, and composed musical pieces, but he was turned down by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT, and wait-listed at Columbia and Dartmouth.

Look at the schools he applied, those are very selective schools and their admission rates are low, i'm pretty confident that he would have been able to handle the course load, i'm pretty sure that all applicants are capable of that since they tend to self-select themselves into these schools.

But he coauthored a paper that was published in an academic journal!

Hmm, yes, that is somewhat impressive but in what and how did he contribute? what is the rank of that journal? what can a boy with high school knowledge actually contribute with? I wouldn't argue it's not possible but it would mean that the boy would have to teach himself college level material maybe even master's level material.

But he has composed musical pieces!

Ok, that does prove originality and other interests other than science & math but the schools he applied and most likely his major wouldn't have been an artsy major, so being able to do that wouldn't have helped much with his profile.

Now, this individual has a decent profile but at the same time, i'm inclined that there are many with the same profile as him. What was his desired major? why did he apply to those schools?

If it was engineering or computer science, i'm pretty sure that MIT and Stanford would have met his standards. There are plenty of excellent engineering & CS schools in the states that aren't in the Ivy league.

Why did he apply to so many Ivy league schools? there are all very different to each other, it's usually recommended to apply to only 1 or at most 2. This would make me believe that he applied because of prestige or because his parents made him to.

In conclusion, he could be a good academic or student but he didn't flesh out other qualities that he had, i'm pretty confident if he 2 - 3 hobbies that he really enjoyed or invested time in he would've got in, in at least one of those schools.

    • 1
    • 4
Oct 27, 2017

You've only re-hashed the same old tired tropes about Asians being one-dimensional prestige whores egged on by their Tiger parents. And what do you have to say to the aggregate data and all the other evidence provided besides those 2 anecdotes? The info in Park's and Lee's anecdotes can't have their full biographies, and I don't understand how you can say "this would make me believe, and "i'm pretty confident" - how do you know they didn't really want those things for themselves? Do you have some special Professor Charles Xavier powers or some special vantage point from Eastern Europe?

Oct 27, 2017

I don't know man, what kind of answer do you expect from me?

it's just an opinion of mine based on what I know and what the article is telling me. The same re-hashed tropes are also mentioned in the article.

Also, the student applied to multiple ivies, nothing wrong with that but all the ivies are different from each other with different campus culture. I actually specify this in my initial reply - that applying to more than 2 ivies leads me to believe that he's mostly applying for the prestige of those schools.

I've read articles about students who got in all the ivies but they were all black .

I will end this by saying that he had chances of getting in because he had the grades, he just didn't have the extra curriculars to separate him from his peers.

Oct 27, 2017

No worries, mate but I think you've missed the point of the article. College adcoms use extra-curriculars and "all-round assessment" precisely because it's fuzzy and subjective so they give themselves leeway to keep Asians out who do well on objective measures. The "roundedness" quality was introduced to keep Jews out in the 1910s and 20s because of the Antisemitism that was rife back then.

I think he applied to multiple Ivies because he didn't want to put all his eggs in one basket - and why wouldn't you apply to multiple unis if you know the standards are high for your group?

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the U.S college application process but depending on the school and your profile you can basically rank them in terms of how likely you are going to get in.
Let's take Stanford for example, there isn't a certain profile that will guarantee you access into that school, same with Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton etc..

Then you have other schools which are prestigious and have a low acceptance rate but are higher than the previously mentioned, other than that you might have an idea of what they're looking for.

After than come state flagship schools, UC schools and eventually you have safety schools. Safety schools can vary for person to person but the idea is that a school is a safety school when you're confident that you will get in.

Other than that you mention that I bring up re-hashed tropes about asians and their one-dimensional prestige whoring only for you to bring up "wouldn't you apply to multiple unis if you know the standards are high for your group?". That was his mistake not separating himself from the rest of the group.

Yeah, I would definitely apply to multiple schools with different acceptance rates but then again, he applied to schools with acceptance rates <7%. Applying to multiple schools with low acceptance rates doesn't guarantee you will get in.

Oct 27, 2017

@Name Of Profit - How does the number of unis applied to differentiate an applicant?

I didn't say applying to multiple unis means a guranteed spot at anyone - so yet another straw man.

And didn't you study in Romania and even then you didn't manage to get good enough grades to get into Warwick's MSc. Economics? So I'd question your credibility on this.

Oct 28, 2017

You said "I think he applied to multiple Ivies because he didn't want to put all his eggs in one basket." It's the main reason I came up with "Applying to multiple schools with low acceptance rates doesn't guarantee you will get in." - I should've been specific and said that applying to multiple Ivies doesn't guarantee he will get in one of them.

The number of unis applied don't differentiate a candidate, I was trying to say that he should've applied to different schools with varying chances of getting in. That's the point of the whole 3rd post.

What does me studying in Romania and not getting into Warwick's program have to do with this? I stand by what i'm saying because I wanted to study in the U.S as well, it didn't happen because of the circumstances that were surrounding me in that time. That doesn't mean I didn't try to understand the whole application process and what schools are looking for.

Oct 28, 2017

It's common sense that you apply to target schools, and then also apply to safety schools which everyone does, and he probably did, The article doesn't say he just sat at home after that, only that he didn't get into the top colleges so you've been adding zilch to the discussion,

Oct 28, 2017

Mate, the only reason why I come back to this thread is to answer your replies and argue my answers.

Yeah, I didn't contribute much since I wasn't really expecting for someone to reply to my OP, imo my original post explained why I believe he didn't get in.

Look into College Confidential and check the chance me threads, some of those kids have ridiculous profiles that even make you question when they even had the time to do all that.

Oct 28, 2017

yeah a lot of them are Asian too

Oct 29, 2017

Cool yeah, that's alright. I'm sorry about my previous ad hominem comment - that wasn't called for.

Oct 27, 2017
Name Of Profit:

There is so much to talk about and this topic is not the first time it has been discussed.

  • If we talk about test scores and performance, anything involving a test, I can strongly agree that asians are waaay better.
  • In terms of cramming, memorizing information in a certain amount of time, yeah, asians are good at that.

Actually, I think asians focus a lot in improving their ability to learn but tend to forget about all the other qualities. Now, lets look at one of the example's provided in this article.

Henry Park's immigrant parents scrimped to send him to prep school at Groton, where he graduated 14th in his class, with a 1,560 SAT score, ran cross-country, and coauthored a published paper in an academic journal--but Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Stanford, and MIT rejected him. Jamie Lee had perfect SAT scores, a 162 IQ, and composed musical pieces, but he was turned down by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT, and wait-listed at Columbia and Dartmouth.

Look at the schools he applied, those are very selective schools and their admission rates are low, i'm pretty confident that he would have been able to handle the course load, i'm pretty sure that all applicants are capable of that since they tend to self-select themselves into these schools.

But he coauthored a paper that was published in an academic journal!

Hmm, yes, that is somewhat impressive but in what and how did he contribute? what is the rank of that journal? what can a boy with high school knowledge actually contribute with? I wouldn't argue it's not possible but it would mean that the boy would have to teach himself college level material maybe even master's level material.

But he has composed musical pieces!

Ok, that does prove originality and other interests other than science & math but the schools he applied and most likely his major wouldn't have been an artsy major, so being able to do that wouldn't have helped much with his profile.

Now, this individual has a decent profile but at the same time, i'm inclined that there are many with the same profile as him. What was his desired major? why did he apply to those schools?

If it was engineering or computer science, i'm pretty sure that MIT and Stanford would have met his standards. There are plenty of excellent engineering & CS schools in the states that aren't in the Ivy league.

Why did he apply to so many Ivy league schools? there are all very different to each other, it's usually recommended to apply to only 1 or at most 2. This would make me believe that he applied because of prestige or because his parents made him to.

In conclusion, he could be a good academic or student but he didn't flesh out other qualities that he had, i'm pretty confident if he 2 - 3 hobbies that he really enjoyed or invested time in he would've got in, in at least one of those schools.

Let's be quite frank. If a black or latino applicant had the exact same credentials, they would have gotten into every college and been featured in newspapers as stories of minority excellence.

What is especially pernicious is that Asian applicants have fallen victims of success. So the argument you guys are making is essentially the following: "Well, Asians work too hard and do well academically but are not original and creative, so it makes sense they don't get in to top colleges." Let's take a step back and realize how absurd this point is. You're using standard stereotypes of Asians and basically going through each of his achievements to justify why it's not really that impressive. Now, I'm not saying that this kid deserved to get into every college he applied to, but let's not pretend that Asian applicants are not held to far higher admission standards. If applicants of all races were judged on equal footing, then it would be a different story.

    • 4
Oct 27, 2017

It's funny how easily liberal admissions professionals can so easily fall into stereotypical, racist thinking to justify their worldview.

Oct 27, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

It's funny how easily liberal admissions professionals can so easily fall into stereotypical, racist thinking to justify their worldview.

Dan Golden and Thomas Esepnshade among others have done a lot of empirical work on college admissions. There was an expose where they were able to gain access to private notes written by admission officers at Princeton, and the amount of racial stereotyping by these liberal whites was pretty astounding. They were literally saying stuff like "he's a typical Asian," "very strong verbal score for an African-American." But of course, that's OK because well, they're liberals who HATE Trump.

    • 4
Oct 27, 2017

Probably true, but still kind of irrelevant. I don't think if college admissions identified as conservative this issue would change tbh.

Oct 27, 2017
Flurite:

Probably true, but still kind of irrelevant. I don't think if college admissions identified as conservative this issue would change tbh.

I guarantee it would change for those of us who hold the worldview that people should be assessed on the content of their character or work product and not on the meaningless superficial qualities. This would include traditional liberals (like, from the U.S. civil rights movement) and modern conservatives.

Oct 27, 2017

Yeah, but that's unfortunately an issue that I believe has to do with the inherent nature of human society. The problem is prejudice will always exist. Self-segregation and availability heuristic (and a slew of other sociological/psychological concepts) will always be a part of human nature that contribute to our perceptions on race.

Honestly, the source of most prejudice is probably movies/media. Do you ever see the star of a blockbuster movie being Asian (that's not doing Asian things aka Jackie Chan)? No, but you do see Asians playing the "nerd" role in certain movies (think recent Spiderman). These portrayals really institutionalize the stereotypes that we give people. Is it wrong? I honestly don't know.

(Note that it should also be said that there are fewer Asians in the film industry as a whole... which is why I want to emphasize this is an issue with both self-segregation and society prejudices.)

I think the issue is how society addresses it. In my opinion, affirmative action in the admissions process is probably the largest institutionalized issue on race that our society has to deal with. It's absolutely insane how much better Asians are scoring on tests, performing in the classroom, and extracurricular experience and still getting rejected.

Note, that I will admit that I am an Asian who went through the admissions process very recently. I grew up with almost all white friends (eventually pledged a fraternity) and hardly identify with Asian culture in anyway and it would be pretty fair to say that the only Asian thing about me is my last name. It was kind of disheartening for me to see my high school peers with markedly "different" credentials than me turn out with more acceptance letters. I was far from perfect, but I do certainly think that there are unspoken quotas in the process.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

Then the solution is pretty clear, these universities should enroll more students but since they're private universities then they get to decide who and how many to accept.

They're private universities and I think applicants can't do anything about that, unless they prove that these schools are actively discriminating, and if they manage to prove that. It's up to the appropriate authorities to take measures.

That or sue the University. But how will they prove they would have gotten in if the decision is holistic and they don't make all applicant profiles public?

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
Name Of Profit:

That or sue the University. But how will they prove they would have gotten in if the decision is holistic and they don't make all applicant profiles public?

This is exactly why the DOJ is taking up the case. The empirical data is clear as day that Asians are specifically discriminated against in admissions to certain universities, but linking any individual admission decision to race is essentially impossible.

Oct 27, 2017

This exactly.

Name of Profit's post itself highlights exactly the underlying racist part of the process.

Oct 27, 2017

Why is it that this site always harps on affirmative action (which I think needs to be reformed to become more economic based) but ignores legacy admissions? Its difficult to get hard numbers but from reading I get the general sense that these admits are less qualified than the AA admits and make up a bigger percentage of top schools....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/grade-...

    • 3
Oct 27, 2017

100% agreed. Victimization is the problem, and it is a huge problem in the U.S. right now. The majority of the time, the only person to blame for our failures, is ourselves. Instead of thinking the system is rigged, or there is some barrier holding them back they should focus delve deeper into why they were rejected. Competition for new generations is only getting tougher. And among asians, the competition is even stiffer. Every single one of my cousins from India scored almost perfect SAT's/ACT's, played multiple instruments, etc. I mean the list goes on. The sad truth is that this kind of profile is becoming common, and I believe there in lies the problem.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

So because there are so many qualified Asian applicants, we should subject them to different admission standards based on race alone. Gotcha.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

I'm just telling it how it is dude. Whether that makes you happy or not is your problem, not mine. All I'm saying is instead of bitching about the system in place, find a way around it. That's what successful people do, it's a mindset thing.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
Bumblebtuna_analyst:

I'm just telling it how it is dude. Whether that makes you happy or not is your problem, not mine. All I'm saying is instead of bitching about the system in place, find a way around it. That's what successful people do, it's a mindset thing.

Yeah man. Let's just STFU and accept discrimination. I'm sure glad Martin Luther King and the civil rights leaders had the same attitude that you are espousing.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

But the system IS rigged against Asian applicants. That's demonstrable in admissions numbers where Asian applicants need better grades and higher tests scores to get in. It's one thing to be paranoid or to blame others for your own failure; but it's another thing to actually look at the numbers and draw the proper conclusion that Asians face actual, real institutional racism, the kind that BLM, et al allege that blacks, Hispanics, etc. endure (and actually don't).

Oct 27, 2017
Roy-Ray:

I agree. But life is not lived in absolutes. For every system that is rigged against you, there is a system that'd favor you. The problem is that we only remember and complain when the system has wronged us, but rarely remember being favored (which happens all the time too).

One of my friend who is a white lady, grew up in middle class, suburban America. Faced no exceptional hardships and did pretty well for herself. Went to a great school and has a decent job. A few weeks back, she was complaining to me about how difficult it is for her/ women to get promoted, as most of the partners in my firm are men. Her reservations maybe true, but for the last 30 yrs when the system favored her, she did not notice.

I'm sorry, but this thinking is just an excuse to deny rational thought. The rational way to look at human beings is to realize that every person is an individual who is differently situated. To throw all Asian people into an "Asian pot" and then proceed to set different standards for them is called RACISM, or, more precisely, INSTITUTIONAL RACISM. Not every Asian grew up with tiger parents, or grew up upper-middle class. Why is it so hard for us to assess people as individuals? Why is that so objectionable?

Oct 27, 2017
Roy-Ray:

Because it can't be done. There's nothing objective about human emotions & perception, we are all biased (at least subconsciously). How can admission committee of <10 people objectively assess 5000+ applications?

I am not trying to defend anything. As long as humans are running the show, you cannot expect a system devoid of favoritism- whether it's based on sex, race, national origin, weight, age- it doesn't matter. Learn to live with it, enjoy it, because you also benefit from it.

Yes, it absolutely can be done. Just because you're a close-minded racist doesn't mean everyone else is.

And when we say "objective" we don't mean focusing solely on test scores--we mean not making broad assumptions about an applicant because he checked the box "Asian."

Oct 27, 2017
Roy-Ray:

Now you're talking like an idiot. When was I racist?

And FWIW, I also check the box "Asian"

So, STFU

It's sad that you think people can't see objectively beyond race. I'm sorry that your worldview is like that; mine certainly isn't.

Oct 27, 2017

I agree that affirmative action should only move towards helping those who come from low-income backgrounds rather than superficial demographic differences.

I think having a small number of legacies helps the whole group from an economic point of view i.e. the small number of past, current and future donors help subsidize the education of a large number of middle- and lower-income but meritorious kids, and thus this helps keeps the lights on. Though this is only in theory, not sure about how it actually is. It would be great if anyone who works at a university endowment could shed some light here.

Oct 27, 2017

Because legacy admissions is a rational economic play by the schools. This is one of the reasons these schools have $30-40 billion endowments that allow them to give financial aid to half of students.

Oct 27, 2017

I there any evidence that Alumni who donate their whole lives stop donating or won't donate if their kids don't get into their alma mater? Can you present that? I see both AA and legacy admits as a circumvention of meritocracy except legacy admits mostly benefit those who need no help and start life on 2nd/3rd base to begin with, rich white people. I think a conversation needs to be had about both, AA can easily be reformed to be economically based while I think legacy admits should be entirely abolished or else limited to a smaller number of the student body (maybe the richest few if you want to think purely economically, to be clear these are the legacy kids that aren't qualified on their own merit).

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
BobTheBaker:

I there any evidence that Alumni who donate their whole lives stop donating or won't donate if their kids don't get into their alma mater? Can you present that? I see both AA and legacy admits as a circumvention of meritocracy except legacy admits mostly benefit those who need no help and start life on 2nd/3rd base to begin with, rich white people. I think a conversation needs to be had about both, AA can easily be reformed to be economically based while I think legacy admits should be entirely abolished or else limited to a smaller number of the student body (maybe the richest few if you want to think purely economically, to be clear these are the legacy kids that aren't qualified on their own merit).

Money is the exact and only reason for legacy admits. As Stanford University report specifically states, they don't just give preference to any legacy--they check into their parents' background to see how well connected they have stayed to the school and what kind of donations they have made. Legacy admissions is wildly unfair, but it is rational and is one of the tools in the arsenal that has allowed the elite universities to build such a commanding war chest over the last 2-3 centuries.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/11/...
I can't speak for all people, but if my alma mater rejected my fairly well qualified son or daughter I would be far less inclined to assist them financially, that's for darn sure.

Oct 27, 2017

100% this, sorry but I would also stop giving to my university if they didn't let my child in.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

Top schools, top companies, top anything, it is not 100% based on skill and ability, but also who someone is a person. That's probably the PC way to put it.

What these schools/companies are looking for is people who can get things done, and who contribute money back/bring in money. If you can't go out and be people friendly, and make connections, you're worthless to these people.

Compare it to dating and relationships. Would you rather date someone really hot (9/10) with no personality or someone whose maybe 7.5/10 but is really fun.

    • 2
Oct 27, 2017

I can see what you mean - but you rather have a 10/10 competent neurosurgeon with 3/10 personality, or a 6.5/10 competent and 10/10 uber-charismatic surgeon? There are several jobs that don't require too much client interaction or people skills such as those in certain areas of tech, buy-side, and medical & biotech research. Also, maybe some Asians foreign nationals are more introverted, but for those who grew up in the West, that's surely an outdated stereotype.

Med school

Oct 27, 2017

I agree 100%, I would rather have the competent neurosurgeon. But as I stated before, it's not entirely, 100%, based on skill.

Take the NBA for example. Whose considered the best player currently in the NBA---Lebron would probably win the consensus. Is he the #1 three point shooter, the #1 defensive player, the fastest, the strongest. No, there is someone in the league better than in each of those stats, but not together. You could probably go to a court in Chicago or NYC or Cally and find someone with more physical ability than most of the guys in the NBA, but at the same time those guys in CHI/NYC/Cally might not have the mental strength to do it day in and day out at the highest level.

You may be the best neurosurgeon, the best whatever, net/net, but life isn't net/net, no one operates in bubble. Princeton/MIT/UPenn are looking for the best and smartest, but also the ones who can get their names in the paper. Most students at these school will never been known by the public, but you don't have to be known by the public to make money. My mother used to work at Princeton, you know what of the biggest problems on campus? Depression. Take all smartest kid at every high school, and throw them together, most go from being the smartest to middle of the pack. How do they handle that?

I can keep going with examples. Think Steve Jobs. Did he invent the MP3 player, no he invented the most "creative" MP3 players. Was the absolute smartest and well read; no, but still smart on school standards, brilliant on other standards.

    • 4
Oct 27, 2017

They should do a in-depth study to see the statistics on the other dimensions of these Asian students. If they are lacking in other dimensions, then the original claims have no basis.

I think that there may be a possibility of a difference between Asians that were either born or brought up in the US vs foreign Asians. So differentiating that portion in the analysi can shed light.

Oct 27, 2017

All the studies are focused on American nationals, not foreign Asians.

Oct 27, 2017

@ironman32 Fair enough, but aren't your examples outliers? If you take away the top 0.0001%, isn't the well-rounded-ness thing superfluous? It's true, Steve Jobs was brilliant on creativity, but I doubt college adcoms can spot that genius from your college application. Rather, they use simplistic rules of thumb to determine that which is where Asians are affected.

College admissions are a zero sum game, so they would have to compare someone of Asian origin to Black/Hispanic - can the adcom really judge that a black kid has higher creativity than an Asian from their college application? That's where the unfairness lies.

Even then there are plenty of "boring" CEOs who do an excellent job of running companies/organisations, innovating and allocating capital well besides the superstar visionaries Jobs, Musks, Bloombergs of the world; sure, you need to be decent in other areas but consider people like Sundar Pichai, Mary Barra, Tim Cook, Rex Tillerson, etc. who may not be charismatic or corporate Picasso-s but they know their stuff and just blow away the competition on the metrics that are core and truly matter.

And does attending a top college for 4 years really give you that extra special sauce which future trail blazers will have? If yes, then where are the legions of Black and Hispanic captains of industry or otherwise among the elite after decades of affirmative action?

Oct 27, 2017

True, but I would not say college is a zero sum game in every way, as it's not strictly based on resumes. It's almost a matter of splitting hairs. Top colleges do take people with perfect scores and extra activities that are quiet and keep to themselves. Most times, people with this attitude are needed to put in long hours in the lab making discoveries. As much as the world needs creative CEO, we also need CEOs who can quietly manage a company and not throw the ball down field.

However, schools need to "diversify". Kinda like if a school was building a band, they could get the 50 best drummers in the world, if they don't get guitars or singers, the band has a smaller market.

Another example (I know I keep going to sports but they don't right about great IB or ER comebacks), look at the Super bowl last year, Pats were down 28-3 in the first quarter, Brady just threw a pick. How many people thought they were coming back? How many five-star 6-5, 4.6 forty, rocket canon arm would have thrown in the towel? But that's Brady's whole career, people doubt him, he does it. In the end, that's what everyone is looking for admissions. Yes you have to be smart, yes you have to be able to study. But college is basically preparing you for "life", and life is a different game than school. Anyone can get a 100% when I teach it to you and tell you what to look at and study, but whose standing there looking at Mars and thinking I can get there; whose looking at cars and thinking I can build one that drives itself; whose thinking I can build a think that transports you here to there in seconds.

Talent hits the target no one else can; genius hits the target no one else can see.

Most of the stuff I'm saying Malcolm Gladwell talks about in his book "outliers", its a good read if you have the time.

    • 3
Oct 28, 2017

I meant to say that the college admissions are zero-sum, someone has to be denied enrollment for someone else to be admitted.

I'm not sure about what your point is - I'm not questioning the value of all-round development and holistic education, I just don't think the adcoms can pick out the geniuses they so desire, and are instead are using such fuzzy criteria to suppress Asian achievement like they did to Jews in the early 20th Century.

If you're saying adcoms should filter out for those with creative spark/explosive potential, i.e. colleges are selection-effect institutions (in Gladwell's terms) - then why shouldn't all be evaluated by the same standards if you think some over-worked college bureaucrats can pick out the next Steve Jobs from high school grades. 3-4 essays, standardized scores, and an hour-long interview?

If you're saying colleges instill creativity in the students, i.e. treatment-effect institutions then why should Asians be screened out for doing well in academics or standardized tests? How much more interesting/unique beyond playing music, debate, sports, volunteering, activism, science/medical research, startups can high school students reasonably get and are Black/Hispanics going toe-to-toe with Asians on these? Please tie your thoughts back to the race-based admissions discussion rather than another sports analogy.

Regarding Gladwell, yeah, I read Outliers in 2009 (and a few others after that). I thought he was amazing back then but that changed quickly when I went deeper. He's a good story-teller and superb wordsmith but he has weak and/or many self-contradictory arguments, and misrepresents a lot of the research and data. His over-aching, grand, awe-inducing theses don't square with reality. But that's for another thread, or you could explore that here:
http://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/the_gladwe... https://www.thenation.com/article/gladwell-dummies/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/s...

Oct 28, 2017

I really have 2 points:

  1. Per the article, yes, there may be a discrimination against a certain group of people per the stats, but college acceptance isn't strictly set the bar high and see who can jump over it.
  2. There's an inherit point within the article that it college acceptance needs to be "fair".
    2a. It doesn't need to be fair.
    2b. It's never going to be fair.

As much as people like to think we don't have discrimination, or we don't discriminate in our everyday life, we do. We should. That's how we survived. If a dog growls at you and bears it's teeth, you dont go up and pet it, you use your senses, you discriminate. If you're picking fruit, you say away from the fruit that looks bad, you discriminate.

If a college doesn't thing someone is a fit, based on a discrimination, right or wrong, they most likely will not admit them. It's like if you go on a job interview, you can have the career history, you can have the intelligence, but if you dress sloppy or curse a lot in the interview, you might not be a good fit.

The article talks about how much more an Asian students needs to score on the SATs compared to other students. There are also those dating articles stating that Asian men need to make $XX more than comparable whites for women to date them. Every inch a man is shorter in height, they need to make $XX more. I'm not saying it's right, its probably more discrimination than anything else, but it's reality.

I mean, do you think any ivy league or company really, really cares about diversity? If Princeton found out that they could get more donation money filtered back to them by only accepting a certain race, or a certain gender, or if a big company found they would have higher revenues by doing the same that they won't do that?

Which leads into my next point, it is not about being fair. Up until high school, maybe college, a lot of things are based on fairness. You get out in the real world, noting is maybe. Maybe the students not accepted just learned that earlier.

Further, like I said, my mother worked on Princeton. I did not attend, but I've been there, it's a great place. I've met professors there who have changed the world. I met one professor who discovered a cancer drug on the wings of a butterfly species, now Princeton is making bank off of that discovery. That's what Princeton wants, but also, he will probably never be a household name.

On the other side, Princeton has Michael Lewis, a household name. Yes, he was an art major, I believe, but in Liar's Poker he detailed how he was able to land a role in IB, wrote a book about it, now every time he publishes what does it say, Princeton graduate. They want that angle too. Not saying another student couldn't have done that, not saying it's a race thing, not saying Lewis is the absolute smartest, but he found a way to get it done. That's what colleges want, that's want companies want.

    • 3
Oct 28, 2017

I'm not against evaluating applicants holistically, but I don't get why Asians as a ethnic group have to be judged by higher standards. You're conflating discernment with prejudice with the dog and job interview examples. Using race to use a different someone to evaluate potential/ability is the crux of the matter.

I never said the world should or ever will be perfectly fair so that's a straw man. Sure, college administrators want out of the box thinkers like Lewis, but why should Asians have a higher bar to clear? Are the Black/Hispanic doing extra curricular activities and have the out of school experience that matches Asians and whites? Please keep it relevant to the college admissions context rather than your overarching worldview.

Do you think using race to evaluate kids' potentials is justified? And if yes, why should Asians be held to a higher standard?

Why should one of the most important institutions of American life use race to suppress a meritorious group?

For colleges and companies who want people "who get it done" - how does using race help you find those who get it done? And if they do, what's so special about being of Black or Hispanic Ethnicity that makes those groups better at "getting it done"?

And FYI, the most elite companies in finance and tech all employ a disproportionate number of Asians, so it's not like Asians are not "getting it done" else they would not be hired in such disproportionately large numbers, or be fired.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-diversity-repo... http://www.goldmansachs.com/s/esg-report/assets/do... [page 17]

They comprise ~25-33% of the top firms, but their proportion is capped at 10-15% of top universities' student bodies - any idea why this discrepancy exists? Only at Caltech, which has race-blind admissions, Asians now constitute 40% of the student body.

The number of Asian college-age students has quadrupled since 1976 but their proportion has stayed steady at around 15-18%.

And you still haven't answered the question - where are the legions of gifted Black and Hispanic among the elite after decades of AA? Wasn't that the point of AA?

Oct 28, 2017

Just to be clear, I agree that I don't think racism is correct or right in anyway, but I try to dive into it to understand it from my experiences.

Why is there a higher bar for Asians to clear to get into colleges, I have not idea. I've never worked in a college admission department, and there could be 1,000s of reasons. I half think you just want some to acknowledge that it is racism, which is probably the case. But will a college never admit that, never.

In terms of AA, it's more about the opportunity than handing out a certain number of positions to a certain race (though we now have quotes). In a broader sense, it's a lot about fitting in with the culture and perception. Look around, look at TV, look at the media, when you see bankers, they're normally white. When do you ever see a Black/Hispanic person depicted as smart, or in the lead role? Not many times. Does that affect people's perception, I don't think you can discount it. There's also perception on the other end. If an African American goes Ivy, they in sense have been believed to "sold out". White people do not face that same agenda when they go Ivy.

I'll give you an example. I worked for a mid-sized firm out of college, and they interviewed a young African American who had just graduated. I didn't interview him, but apparently he was capable, could do the job, met the position. However, the one big hold up was when the young man interviewed he didn't wear a tie or jacket. Now, if they said he wasn't wearing the correct tie or jacket, that's a different conversation. In my head, you can go to goodwill and get both for $1. But it's a culture thing, if you don't know proper dress code, what else do you not know. Not saying people can't fit in different cultures, not saying it's a race thing, but there are certain standards in certain environments that people expect.

P.S, in the end, he did get the job.

    • 2
Oct 28, 2017

The fact that there is a higher bar for Asians is why this thread exists.

You've been rambling on and on about life, culture, etc. You still haven't answered any questions - where are the black and Hispanic elites that AA was supposed to create?

If they handed out positions to certain races - shouldn't we see more Black and Hispanic bankers at the top by now after decades of AA?

I'm not sure what you're saying in the last 2 paras or how that relates constraining Asian achievement. Couldn't the capable black dude just wear a tie or jacket? C'mon man, surely everyone knows that you dress formally for an interview - it's just a lack of desire or an attitude problem.

And even if it is a cultural thing, why should Asians suffer for their culture that values diligence, self-discipline and intellectual achievement? Isn't this exactly the sort of thing higher education should promote in order to produce engaged and productive citizens rather punish them for i?

    • 2
Oct 28, 2017

I don't totally know the ins and outs of AA, but isn't it more to give opportunity than to put different races at the top of organizations? I don't really know the stats on it ether, for example, if a bank has an incoming class of 100 employees, what percentages has to be AA? If it were that simple, or that simple of a fix, it would have most likely been fixed by now.

The point of my story of my coworker is, a lot of it has to do with environment and someone adapts to a different environment. It would be similar to me going to a foreign country, it would be hard for me to relate in daily life. I could find a way, but it won't be as if I had grown up immersed in that culture. Obviously he didn't know that you need a tie and jacket, that was the whole debate in hiring him. Anyone can go to school and do great, and be smart; but do you know the customs, and the pleasantries, do you know to look someone in the eye when shaking their hand, how to hold a conversation, the social norms.

It is a cultural thing, but I don't think diligence, self-discipline and intellectual achievement is what is being discounted in this equation. I think it has to do more with the social boundaries that are set up.

Also, this conversation has been laced with stereotypes and assumptions, mainly that Asians are hard working but can't get ahead, Black/Hispanics can only get ahead with help, and that white people are the evil behind it all. Again, I think those are stereotypes more than anything else.

Additionally, one more stat, 12-0. In our debate here, 12 represents that number of bananas that I've received, 0 is your number. So I won't exactly call my comments rambling.

    • 2
Oct 28, 2017

Yet again you've not directly answered any questions or addressed anything I've pointed out, and instead rebutted what you wanted to about culture, so either you've chosen not to or you don't get it.

The percentages don't have to be anything, I was just pointing out that Asians "get it done" at elite firms, so they are suppressed as a group if you reference their ability to succeed at elite firms and the get into the, and probably only race-blind elite university, Caltech.

No one denies that culture matters a lot, but why Asians should be punished because they get the cultural stuff right? Their values that lead to their achievements + contributions must be encouraged and rewarded rather than penalized.

Anyway, this is my last response to you. Enjoy your 12 bananas and weekend!

    • 1
Oct 28, 2017

Problem was you kept shifting the topic, I answered one question but you pivoted to another.

Saying Asians "get it done" at elite firms, that's opinion, its not fact. Is there a stat for that? I would say everyone at elite firms gets it done, that's how they got there. Asians values, Black values, Hispanic values, White values all have value. Again, a lot of stereotypes.

Thank you, it was fun debating, have a nice weekend as well.

Oct 27, 2017

My biggest problem is that admissions officers come to these conclusions about personality based on the Asian race of the applicant.

For real. If a black person submitted the same application as that Asian person, they would not be classified as introverted, etc.

Oct 27, 2017

The opening sentence of the linked article:

"He's quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor," read the reviewer's note on one application.

Ugh, this is so depressing that an applicant reviewer would see another prospective doctor as a bad thing. As an admissions professional, once you've become this jaded it's time to switch careers.

Oct 27, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:

The opening sentence of the linked article:

"He's quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor," read the reviewer's note on one application.

Ugh, this is so depressing that an applicant reviewer would see another prospective doctor as a bad thing. As an admissions professional, once you've become this jaded it's time to switch careers.

A kid from a wealthy high school in New Jersey wrote a Stanford essay with the words "BLACK LIVES MATTER" written a hundred times. He got in. No, this is not from the Onion. It's real.

Stuff like this is why Trump got elected.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/04/black-lives-...

    • 2
Oct 27, 2017

If we ignore foreign nationals, do these statistics hold?
What are all the criteria admissions use to select? For example, a disproportionate amount of Asians live in California or New York. Many schools seek geographic diversity. Is this playing a role?

I don't believe in federally mandated affirmative action. However, each school has the right to choose the make up of its campus and school culture. Most of the Ivies target those who drastically outperform their peers. That's harder to do when Asians, as a whole, are maxing out everything and can't be differentiated. Also, what is the alum giving like for Asians? I know schools track that.

Finally, I KNOW of two occasions where a high SAT scoring Asian retook the test for his friends. Never EVER heard this about not Asians. We also know how badly many Chinese foreign nationals cheat. Perhaps admissions is giving a haircut to their apps. Asians may also benefit from Americanizing their last names, like our overlords do. That seems to work ;)

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
HazelJ:

Finally, I KNOW of two occasions where a high SAT scoring Asian retook the test for his friends. Never EVER heard this about not Asians. We also know how badly many Chinese foreign nationals cheat. Perhaps admissions is giving a haircut to their apps. Asians may also benefit from Americanizing their last names, like our overlords do. That seems to work ;)

My post was deleted by a system error, so sorry if repost.

I was saying that I'm vampire white but paid my Russian friend to take the SAT for me. He got cold feet and did not move forward on the deal, but this happens w/all races, I'm sure.

Oct 27, 2017

As silly as this is, most ID checkers are non-asian and can't / don't care to differentiate other races. I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood and am black. But, I can see where it may happen.

Oct 27, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
HazelJ:

Finally, I KNOW of two occasions where a high SAT scoring Asian retook the test for his friends. Never EVER heard this about not Asians. We also know how badly many Chinese foreign nationals cheat. Perhaps admissions is giving a haircut to their apps. Asians may also benefit from Americanizing their last names, like our overlords do. That seems to work ;)

My post was deleted by a system error, so sorry if repost.

I was saying that I'm vampire white but paid my Russian friend to take the SAT for me. He got cold feet and did not move forward on the deal, but this happens w/all races, I'm sure.

The amount of accepted stereotyping against Asian-Americans, even by liberal whites, is pretty astounding. If they said anything comparable about blacks, they would go nuts and cry racism

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

Self censored.

    • 1
    • 1
Oct 27, 2017
HazelJ:

I'm black BTW. Stereotypes exists for a reason. Here's one: black americans, for a host of reasons, tend to not demonstrate initiative or be as polished for the corporate world as whites or asians.
""not going nuts or crying racism""

Whether or not stereotypes hold water in general should not preclude us from consciously setting them aside and giving every individual the benefit of the doubt and assessing them individually.

I sound like a bleeding heart liberal, but the reality is, modern conservatism--for most or many of us--is really the adoption and adaptation of the moral clarity of past liberals.

Oct 27, 2017
Dances with Dachshunds:
HazelJ:

I'm black BTW. Stereotypes exists for a reason. Here's one: black americans, for a host of reasons, tend to not demonstrate initiative or be as polished for the corporate world as whites or asians.
""not going nuts or crying racism""

Whether or not stereotypes hold water in general should not preclude us from consciously setting them aside and giving every individual the benefit of the doubt and assessing them individually.

I sound like a bleeding heart liberal, but the reality is, modern conservatism--for most or many of us--is really the adoption and adaptation of the moral clarity of past liberals.

Noted. Thx.

Oct 27, 2017
HazelJ:

I'm black BTW. Stereotypes exists for a reason. Here's one: black americans, for a host of reasons, tend to not demonstrate initiative or be as polished for the corporate world as whites or asians.
""not going nuts or crying racism""

Sure. There may be a basis for them, but one should not use stereotypes to make assessments about people on an individual basis, as some in this thread are doing. For instance, blacks are 13% of the U.S. population but commit 50% of violent crimes. That does not mean that when I'm walking around and see a black man, I think, "OMG! He is 4 times more likely to kill or rob me relative to the share of blacks in the country at large!" If anyone were to publicly express such sentiment, they would be denounced as racist. What's amazing is that so many liberal whites have no problem making gross generalizations about Asians under the guise of "anecdotal" observation. If anything, black crime rate has much stronger empirical basis than stereotypes of Asians being "boring," or "uncreative."

Oct 27, 2017
Rufus1234:

The amount of accepted stereotyping against Asian-Americans, even by liberal whites, is pretty astounding. If they said anything comparable about blacks, they would go nuts and cry racism

The traditional civil rights movement (1940s - 1960s) had incredible moral clarity--that all people are entitled to equality before the law and should be judged on their own individual merit (their personality, moral character, ability, etc.) in personal and professional relationships. Over the decades, this moral clarity has been muddied by the moral degradation of liberals who now see humanity exclusively in terms of "groups" and "the other."

Oct 27, 2017

I agree with this 100% and this is probably the most reasonable comment on this thread.

Oct 27, 2017

How is this a reasonable comment at all? He insinuates that colleges should make decisions about an individual Asian applicant based on perceived stereotypes of the whole Asian population ("Also, what is the alum giving like for Asians?").

And idk where he got the idea that foreign nationals are skewing the statistics. Asian Americans who have been born and raised in America are surely the most targeted.

Oct 27, 2017

Alumini giving wouldn't be a stereotype, but a statistic that can be tracked. It's been a while since I looked at UG, but for MBA, foreign nationals are proven to have skewed gmat scores.

Oct 27, 2017

So because some foreign nationals might be cheating (you're most certainly over exaggerating the frequency of this, lets be real), affirmative action should be used as compensation for all Asians? Including Asian Americans who were born and raised in America and most definitely make up the vast majority of applicants to American colleges?Also, because colleges get less funding from Asians statistically, they should take that into account for an applicant because his last name is Chen? If you don't find that outrageous, then at least colleges should make it clear to all their applicants: "we will take into consideration the lower alumni contributions from Asians into our admissions decisions." We'll see how that works out.

    • 1
Oct 27, 2017

All the stats and studies are on Americans, and the stats like parents' income, education, etc. is gleaned from self-reported and census data. But how come the geographic data doesn't apply to Hispanics who are also disproportionate in those states?
Foreign nationals are small percentage of the undergrad body, Asian foreign nationals fewer still. Different story for grad schools.

Oct 28, 2017

Life sucks. Play the cards you're dealt and move on.

    • 1
Oct 28, 2017

I think everyone should be given a fair chance.

I'm not supportive of lower test scores being good enough for acceptance because of the color of one's skin.

Sure, it's great to have scholarships for people in the same group/race. That helps greatly. But, admissions?

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 1
Oct 28, 2017

Why are there so many Asian racists, or are they all conspiracy theories?

Dfy Chief Review

    • 1
Oct 29, 2017

There is definitely rampant discrimination against Asian men, especially by women with true blond hair. What should be done about this?

    • 3
Oct 30, 2017

That's why there's an app called "East Meet East" for Asians to date other Asians in the US lol

Oct 30, 2017
JayStock:

That's why there's an app called "East Meet East" for Asians to date other Asians in the US lol

Don't fall for the troll.

Oct 30, 2017

I think the problem is that we totally just fucked over black people as a culture and remain very aware of this but also try to reconcile that fact with the realization that no white dude born in the 90s is trying to sacrafice his equal opportunity, wealth or property to compensate for what some European in the 1600s did.

The was I see this is that Black People and White Peopel are not singlular units and it's not productive to keep a perpetual timeline of offenses. I was born in 1996 and I don't feel that I ought to be born with a debt to repay a black man that was enslaved 300 years before my birth, just because I'm a part of some alleged white team that collectively owes team Africa something. I'm just some fuckin Italian dude born to lower-middle class parents going through my own trials and tribulations. To hold me accountable to the actions of slave drivers is like me insisting my islamic cowokers ought to take direct responsibility for 9/11 or women's oppression in Saudi Arabia.

    • 1
    • 1
Jul 18, 2018
LReed:

I think the problem is that we totally just fucked over black people as a culture and remain very aware of this but also try to reconcile that fact with the realization that no white dude born in the 90s is trying to sacrafice his equal opportunity, wealth or property to compensate for what some European in the 1600s did.

The was I see this is that Black People and White Peopel are not singlular units and it's not productive to keep a perpetual timeline of offenses. I was born in 1996 and I don't feel that I ought to be born with a debt to repay a black man that was enslaved 300 years before my birth, just because I'm a part of some alleged white team that collectively owes team Africa something. I'm just some fuckin Italian dude born to lower-middle class parents going through my own trials and tribulations. To hold me accountable to the actions of slave drivers is like me insisting my islamic cowokers ought to take direct responsibility for 9/11 or women's oppression in Saudi Arabia.

AMEN.

Nov 15, 2017

Ok so here's the real simple, no-nonsense, 15 second explanation that provides full clarity in the issue with zero offensiveness.

"You have some majors/schools with something like 50% asian. No American company is going to have half their floor be asians."

End of discussion, moving on.

    • 2
Jul 20, 2018

Try working in tech.

End of the discussion, dumb argument.

Besides, did anyone think liberals would stop at white men? It'll be Asian men after them, then white women, then Asian women, then definitely Jews to appease Muslims.

    • 1
Jul 20, 2018

Most arabs come from solid backgrounds and for that reason don't need affirmative action. The only people that really deserve affirmative action are black people. But having Goldman Sachs recruit an extra few "people of color" from Harvard Business School every year isn't the type of affirmative action that actually helps black people from neighborhoods that have plighted as a result of systemic racism.

It definitely does suck going to a superday with 12 people, knowing their only taking three people and acknowledging that one of the women is going to get the job, one of the people of color is going to get the job and then the 8 white males are all going to have to duke it out for the last spot. I guess the counter-argument could be that the reason why 8 white males made it to the superday in the first place is because of their privilege, but I've noticed that the women and people of color that show up to IB superdays aren't generally kids from Flint, Michigan or South Bronx that grew up at any noticeable disadvantage.

    • 1
    • 1
Jul 20, 2018
LReed:

I guess the counter-argument could be that the reason why 8 white males made it to the superday in the first place is because of their privilege, but I've noticed that the women and people of color that show up to IB superdays aren't generally kids from Flint, Michigan or South Bronx that grew up at any noticeable disadvantage.

Maybe the fact that 8 of the 12 candidates are white males is representative of a general population that is ~70% white and an industry that is overwhelmingly male (as other industries are overwhelmingly female), and not demonstrative of some larger conspiracy of privilege. Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Jul 20, 2018

You're racist!

    • 1
Jul 20, 2018
Jul 20, 2018
Jul 21, 2018
Jul 21, 2018
Jul 22, 2018