How the hell is this proven? I.e say I decided to apply at GS and put down I was half native american half russian, how exactly would they prove I'm not?
Always wondered, same for the gay think, If I say I'm a homosexual will they really be able to tell otherwise? :p
| +151 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 57 | 34m | |
| +113 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 55 | 11m | |
| +70 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 52 | 1h | |
| +38 | Ranking banks that went under | 20 | 5h | |
| +34 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 18 | 2s | |
| +32 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 15 | 10h | |
| +29 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 21 | 17h | |
| +26 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 2d | |
| +25 | Intern Ettiquette | 4 | 12h | |
| +23 | What are hours like at BBs in London? | 47 | 12h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Im intrigued by this topic as well, as I have thought about it many times. Putting down gay eskimo or something to that extent.
I know a Native American kid who said that I can pretty much buy a 'native' ID from a tribe for about 1k. It would be worth it if I can use that to my advantage applying to B-schools.
HAHAHA
bump
Surely, that should fit the diversity requirement
I'm sure if they had some doubt they'd be able to verify it through some government agency. Then you would be out of a job and probably not get a job for a while for lying.
i DOUBT a government agency would really know if you are 1/4th black especially if you immigrated from russia and your black grandpa was from there.
no way anyone can disprove this!!!
I'm going to apply to a BB this fall as one quarter africa, one quarter hispanic, one quarter native american and one quarter ice landic.
"Banking - It is what it is"
Add that you're a gay disabled single father for +500 extra diversity points
May have trouble swinging the disabled/single farther thing being my age/looking healthy. I suppose I could rent a wheel chair.
I'm going to open up a company one day, and when I post a job, I will EXPLICITLY state (and thank God I live in the wonderful Commonwealth of Virginia) that we are NOT an affirmative action employer and that we hire solely based upon qualifications, specifically blind of one's race or gender. "If you have a problem with that then don't apply for this job because you won't fit in with our for-profit, free-thinking, colorblind culture--you f****** douchebag hippie."
Affirmative action is fucking retarded. I am proud to be an uber wasp. My family has been in America since 1679. Hard to get more AMERICAN than that.
"Oh the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion" - Frank Slaughtery 25th Hour.
so is there anyone that can show that there is a background check being able to show that u are not really an under rep minority??
Whites in America have gained an unfair advantage in this country through government-sanctioned racism. Minorities however, are not as lucky. We are constantly stereotyped, excluded, and held down by institutional racism, and discrimination. If some of you really believe that hiring should be based on qualifications/merit, then what would you call the last 200 years or so? I agree that hiring should be merit-based only, but the sad truth is that this hasn’t been the case. Whites have constantly been elevated above the rest of us, allowing them to accumulate wealth, and property, is this “colorblind”? For instance, in the 1930s, the government began offering low-interest, taxpayer-guaranteed loans through the Federal Housing Administration. Millions of families took part in the new program, and the American middle-class was born. Over a thirty-year period, over $100 billion in home equity was loaned through these initiatives, but it was almost exclusively a white middle-class created by these policies, how the fuck do you think the suburbs were created (ever heard of “white flight”?) Ever since the founding of America, whites have constantly been put on a pedestal, a pedestal built on the continuous suffering of other people, not only poor minorities, but also by poor whites. If your family has been here since 1679, then your family has had the opportunity to make millions, upon millions. Affirmative Action doesn’t even work; requirements have become paper tigers over the past fifteen years or so; first, because of Old Man Reagan’s assaults, and now because the agencies charged with overseeing civil rights compliance have too few resources to make the laws meaningful. FYI, I’m a black man, who’s family has been here since 1780.
Poor nigro, Been here since 1780 and still cant get ahead. At least blacks and Hispanics can now use reverse discrimination to their advantage. But now what about the other immigrants that came to America within the last decade? look at the eastern Europeans (specifically Russians), they get no special treatments whatsoever and they seem to be doing just fine. Look at the Asians as well, why do you think they call them the model minority? They go get their educations, start businesses and don't beg for welfare.
It is here where I roll my eyes, and take a deep breath
Your little quip about Russians is very amusing to me. Really, your argument dismantles it self. You say that Eastern Europeans do not receive any special treatment on the institutional level. Now tell me, have Eastern Europeans gone through any of the following: government-sanctioned slavery, colonization (and subsequent corruption), Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws, the norm of institutional racism, housing discrimination, job discrimination, exclusion from mainstream society, or any other significant hindrance to their ability to succeed, accumulate wealth, or property? I didn’t think so. You must understand why “special treatment” exists; it is a botched attempt to create diversity in schools, and in the workplace. Now, even a mentally challenged person [for lack of a better word] can understand that nothing happens without a cause. Society would not spontaneously give one group special preference over the other for no reason, would they? No. Affirmative action, and other reverse-discrimination programs were created by a white liberal response academics call “white guilt.” Most Eastern Europeans have not been subjected to the horrors that African Americans have had to endure over the years. To explain , I can offer this analogy: it is 9:00, and there are two cars trying to reach the same destinations, albeit at different times. If car 1 is on the highway, and there is an impassable traffic jam, said car will not be able to pass, no matter how long it stays on the highway, there are only two ways that the car can reach it’s destination; if he waits a few hours, and rush hour ends, or if the rest of the cars advance along the highway. However, six hours later, car 2 comes onto the highway from a road closer to the destination. Traffic is sparse, as rush hour has passed. Which car will reach the destination the quickest (not relative to each other).
What also bothers me is that your statement has racial undertones. Considering the manner in which you word your statement, I interpret the following: one, you believe that those with melanin deficiencies are inherently better than the rest of us, two, that you believe blacks are the only ones that “beg for welfare.” So from this, I deduct two things; you’ve never heard of Nigerians (see footnote 1), and that you’ve never visited The Bible Belt (see footnote 2).
First, I noted that the Asian "model minority" myth has long been a staple of white conservative race commentary, though rarely have members of the various Asian communities in the U.S. pushed the notion themselves. The genesis of this argumentation goes back to the 1950s and '60s, when prominent magazines ran articles lauding the "hard-working" Chinese or Japanese, and explicitly contrasting their "success" with the "failure" of African Americans. That they offered such a contrast at the height of the modern civil rights movement -- as if to say to black folks, "stop complaining about racism and just work harder" -- should not be lost on anyone. Of course, none of these magazines ever editorialized in favor of lifting immigration restrictions that had kept Asian populations small in the U.S. from the 1880s until 1965, despite their respect for the "model minorities." Neither did any such admirers speak out against internment of hard-working Japanese Americans during World War Two, or the killing of hard-working Southeast Asians during the Vietnam War.
Secondly, that comparisons between blacks and Asian Pacific Americans (APAs) overlook a number of differences between them. Whereas the black population represents a cross-section of background, the APA community is highly self-selected. Voluntary migrants from nations that are not contiguous to their country of destination tend to have the skills and money needed to leave their home country in the first place. As many scholars have found, Asian immigrants are largely drawn from an occupational and educational elite in their countries of origin. Indeed, Asian success in the U.S. relative to others is largely due to immigration policies that favor immigrants with pre-existing skills and education. As the Glass Ceiling Commission discovered in 1995, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the highly educated APA community already had college degrees before coming to the U.S., or were in college upon arrival. Thanks to preferences for educated immigrants, APAs are two-thirds more likely than whites and three times more likely than blacks to have a college degree. More than 8 in 10 Indian immigrants from 1966-1977 had advanced degrees and training in such areas as science, medicine or engineering.
Pre-existing educational advantages are implicated in Asian success, but hardly indicate genetic or cultural superiority. After all, to claim superior Asian genes or culture as the reasons for achievement in the U.S. requires one to ignore the rampant poverty of persons from the same backgrounds in their countries of origin. There is no shortage, after all, of desperately poor Asians in the slums of Manila, Calcutta and Hong Kong: testament to the absurdity of cultural superiority claims for Asians as a group.
Indeed, if one examines ethnic Koreans in Japan and the Burakumin there -- a minority treated much like the Dalits and other lower caste persons in India -- one finds the same kind of consistent underperformance relative to the dominant Japanese in terms of education and employment status. Both are targets of discrimination, and although they are culturally and genetically indistinguishable from other Koreans or Japanese, they are consistently found at the bottom of Japanese society, and do worse than others in Japan and Korea. Not only does this debunk the notion of pan-Asian cultural superiority, it also suggests that a group's caste status influences group outcomes: much as with blacks in the U.S., whose position has been similar to the Burakumin and ethnic Koreans in Japan.
The primary argument put forth on behalf of the model minority myth is that APA income in the U.S. is higher than the average for other people of color and even whites. As such, it is suggested, racial discrimination must be long gone. But data showing Asians doing better than whites is family and household data, not per capita income data. This is important because APA households and families tend to have more family members (thus, slightly higher incomes have to cover more persons), and more earners per family (thus, it takes more folks working so as to earn only slightly more than whites, with fewer income earners). The average Asian household size, for example, is 3.3 persons, compared to only 2.5 per household for whites. Likewise, Asian American families are more likely than white families to have two income earners, and nearly twice as likely to have three earners. So while Asian household and family income is higher than that for whites, the median income per person is lower for Asians: as much as $2000 less annually.
An additional reason why the average income of Asian families is higher than that of whites is because Asians are concentrated in parts of the country that have higher average incomes and costs of living. The three states with the largest Asian populations and a disproportionate share of the overall Asian population (California, New York and Hawaii), rank 13th, 4th, and 16th in terms of average income: all within the top third of states. Whereas 76 percent of Asian Americans live in the higher-income regions of the West and Northeast, only 41 percent of whites and 28 percent of blacks are in these regions. Over half of all APAs in the U.S. live in just five major U.S. cities (Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City): all of which have higher than average household incomes, and much higher costs of living than most of the U.S.
According to the Census Bureau, in 1996, median household income was $35,500. But in states with disproportionate shares of Asians (NY and Hawaii, for example), median household income was $39,000 and $42,000 respectively. This means that APA median income will be skewed upward, relative to the rest of the country, but given cost of living differences, actual disposable income and living standards will be no better and often worse.
More importantly, claims of Asian success obscure the fact that the Asian American child poverty rate is nearly double the white rate, and according to a New York Times report in May of 1996, Southeast Asians have the highest rates of welfare dependence of any racial or ethnic group in the United States. Nearly half of all Southeast Asian immigrants and refugees in the U.S. live in poverty, with annual incomes in 1990 of less than $10,000 per year. Amazingly, even those Southeast Asians with college degrees face obstacles. Two-thirds of Lao and Hmong-American college graduates live below the poverty level, as do nearly half of Cambodian Americans and over a third of Vietnamese Americans with degrees.
Indeed, Asian "success" rhetoric ignores the persistent barriers to advancement faced by Asians relative to whites. On average, APAs with a college degree earn 11 percent less than comparable whites, and APAs with a high school diploma earn, on average, 26 percent less than their white counterparts. When Asian American men have qualifications comparable to white men, they still receive fewer high-ranking positions than those same white men. APA male engineers and scientists are 20 percent less likely than white men to move into management positions in their respective companies, despite no differences in ambition or desire for such positions.
Beyond statistics, there are other points to be made. First, if whites truly believe that Asians are culturally superior and add to the quality of schools and workplaces, then why aren't these folks clamoring for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations? Why not flood the borders, since we could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEOs step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?
Secondly, whites who trumpet the model minority concept would be the first to object if Asian Americans began to bump their own white children from college slots, even if they did so by way of higher test scores and "merit" indicators. Just ask yourself what would happen if next year the top 3500 applicants to U.C.-Berkeley, in terms of SAT score and grades, happened to be Asian Americans, especially since there are only 3500 slots in the freshman class. Would the regents allow the freshman class at the state's flagship school to become 100 percent Asian? Or for that matter even 80 percent or 70 percent? How would white Californians react to such a development, including those who praise hard-working Asian kids for their educational excellence and scholarly achievements? How would white alums react if their favorite "model minorities" were suddenly seen as taking slots not from black and Latino youth, but from their own white children? To ask the question is to answer it.
And finally, to argue that "Asians have made it, so why can't blacks," is to misunderstand the issue of moral and ethical responsibility to correct the harm of wrongful actions. Even if we accept that groups victimized by racism can "make it" without affirmative action or reparations, that would not deny (or indeed speak to in any way) the fact that society has an obligation to compensate the victims of injustice. After all, if my leg is blown off in an industrial accident, it hardly matters that many people with only one leg go on to succeed. The issue of compensatory justice remains, irrespective of what gains one can make without compensation.
I have little reason to think that any of this made a difference to the individual who chose that day to trumpet Asian success as a way to denigrate blacks. Given some of his other comments -- that black promiscuity was to blame for AIDS in Africa, and that he resented the "fact" that his black son (presumably adopted) has more opportunity in life than his white son, despite the fact that the former is unemployed and the latter in college -- his ability to rationally decipher much of anything seems doubtful. Nonetheless, challenging the model minority myth is a worthwhile enterprise, especially when one considers how many decent, well-meaning individuals often fall for it.
Those who trumpet "Asian values and culture" (based on stereotypical understandings of both, not unlike the white guys who covet mail-order Asian brides for their anticipated "docility"), do Asians no favors. If anything, they set them up in a way that not only harms the groups against which they are contrasted, but in a way that harms Asians as well. To be considered a group filled with math and science geniuses and passive, sensual, and willing female companions, not only objectifies Asian Pacific Americans, but results in a special stigma for those in the various Asian groups who aren't good in school, don't know how to fix your computer nor care to do so, or who don't fit the sexist stereotypes that are so comforting to Western male tastes.
Don’t try to argue with me because I can easily debunk any argument that you might have against me.
Russians and Asians were never enslaved for 200 years, were they?
I can't speak about the ethinicity. But I know if you say you are gay you have to pitch to David Viniar. You bend him over the table in conference room A, and HR observes your degree of comfort.
Ironically, catchers are not welcome at Goldman as they already represent the majority.
It is despicable - look at who wrote the dissenting opinion for the Supreme court in the UMichigan case: Clarence Thomas.
His point was that if applications are not gauged purely on merit, then minorities who are truly qualified are discriminated against because they will be grouped with unqualified minorities who succeeded only because of discrimination.
Think about it from a practical perspective: would you rather undergo brain surgery from a white doctor who did not advance because of AA, or a black doctor whose quality you can't gauge because he may be seriously sub-par but advanced because of the color of his skin? The black doctor may be very qualified, but affirmative action leaves that in doubt.
Getting back to the UMich case, it was clear from the application standards presented in the case that a white student with a 4.0 was gauged the same as a black student with a 3.0. Look at sites like www.lawschoolnumbers.com and check out how much lower GPA and LSAT scores are for minority students at top 10s. It is ridiculous that we are promoting this mediocrity. We are judging people based on the color of their skin.
If we consider that minority job applicants benefited from affirmative action in undergrad admissions, and grad school admissions (if they went), isn't it ludicrous that they should need another 'boost' when it finally comes time to be productive?
Firms adopt diversity hiring practices so that they can garner lots of different viewpoints that emanate from their employees' varying backgrounds. The obvious answer to achieving this spectrum is to ask people about their background experiences in interviews, not to automatically give them a leg up because of their race.
Nigo - if you are actually qualified and capable, you should oppose affirmative action because anybody looking for a competent worker may rule you out because you could just be another AA case. The only reason I have to suspect that you're sub-par is that you advocate people getting this arbitrary boost.
People with the ability should not be opposed to succeeding on their own merit.
YesMan, while I agree with you on principal... I think the difference between finalist candidates in critical roles are negligible, so to say the white man was qualified but the black Dr is questionable, is not correct. Both are qualified if they have made it that far. The black guy may get into a better medschool and thus have access to better medial programs... but he wont graduate or excel unless he is capable. Similarly, while he may graduate next to his white classmate and they may both apply to the #1 program, he won't get an offer PURELY on the color of his skin.
Second, AA plays more of a role in lower level positions.... i.e. college applicant, investment banking analyst, etc... You never hear of the successor for the CEO's office getting passed up for a black guy because of AA. Its very unlikely that the Director of Johns Hopkins will be a black guy because of AA. Consequently, race/ethnicity becomes a ceiling past the fresh meat level. So you'll notice that while AA may pose an unfair advantage at the lower-level, it dissipates rather quickly as you look upward, and quickly turns into a disadvantage.
I was merely pointing out that WHITES have received, and have continued to receive preferential treatment in America, and that AA was formulated to “tip the balance”, and to “reverse the racism”. I am certainly in favor of the concept that AA [attempts to] promote: diversity in viewpoints, and in experiences, but I don’t agree with the way that institutions go about trying to artificially create diversity. Your idea of interviewing candidates about their experiences is definitely interesting, but I think that essays regarding background, and experiences would also be appropriate. I say this because AA assumes that all minorities are poor, and are unable to attain things without preferential treatment, and asking about candidates’ backgrounds would establish a more “complete portrait” of the candidate. I come from a majority-non-white/wealthy neighborhoods where kids had tutors, wealthy parents, and all the perks of a WASP, without actually being one. A TRUE diversity program wouldn’t support these kids, since they’re essentially black WASPs [a la Carleton, and Hilary Banks]. Also about myself: graduated high school at the age of 16, had a near-perfect SAT score and Dartmouth by the age of 19. I play piano, violin, clarinet, and trombone. I had a 3.78 GPA. So I don’t think I’m sub-par.
My point precisely is that eventually people will be judged by their qualifications when they must add value, so why do we continuously cater to mediocrity when we're trying to educate people and prepare them for jobs?
The doctor example may be a stretch, but reverse discrimination persists in many, many less headlining positions. For example, in a hometown near mine, budget cuts required a school to fire teachers. In one dept, it came down to a black teacher and white teacher. The white teacher had a masters degree and more work experience, but the black teacher was kept on because she was black. If this type of standard is commonplace, it justifies people asking - and doubting - if workers of minority status are truly the most qualified.
There is also opportunity cost - we can rest assured that a sub-par minority applicant to an investment banking position probably won't ascend to higher levels - but it comes at the opportunity cost of a qualified non-minority candidate who may have been promoted.
Similarly, look at the recent supreme court ruling - which overturned a ruling by nominee sotomayor - which said that white firefighters were unjustly denied promotion. They had taken a qualifications test - and passed - but the test was thrown out because no black candidates passed. Don't you want the commanders of a fire dept to be the most qualified, capable of passing a sit-down test? Why do we need to lower the bar for black candidates? If this type of reverse discrimination existed at the lieutenant-captain level, we can safely assume that it existed at lower levels - so again, we see minority candidates being coddled at every step, and eventually we must ask "when have they been given enough unfair advantages"?
Statistics may show that whites somehow receive preferential treatment today. But if we are to endorse the idea that discrimination is wrong, it seems logical to me that we should first do away with policy that explictly discriminates, and then examine policy that purportedly inadvertently discriminates.
I would also cite econometric studies which link achievement to background. While deficiency may be more prevalent amongst black communities, when groups are controlled for race, the conclusion is that deficiency is race-blind and instead linked to poverty. Because poverty rates are higher amongst blacks, there are therefore bound to be higher deficiencies. So if we truly want to give people an advantage, we should be asking about their household income, not race.
That's right, it's not a race issue, it's a class issue.
Yesman, as I said before I agree with you on principal.
With regard to you econometrics comment:
It is however important to note that achievement, merit, aptitude, etc... are all measured based on a given set of confines. That metric is often set in the context of the majority. I don't believe a test score can adequately gauge aptitude. Nor do I believe statistics can, because some statistics are decided to be significant while others are not.
What makes a doctor smart/capable? Do those same characteristics make an engineer smart/capable, or a musician. I hold the view that if you take some of our standardized tests and various metrics we've designed with such great sophistication and administer them to people like Michelangelo, Bethoven, Van Gogh, Aristotle etc... they would qualify as marginally retarded. I'd even go so far to say that this would probably hold true for more modern people... say John Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt. Because those people are exceptionally good at certain things. Statistics offer a metric based on the context in which it is designed. Someone chooses one statistic over another. While one person may be exceptionally good at painting, the other Physics and playing to violin (like the negro fag above), what constitutes one being smart, more able or more accomplished than the other: the person designing the study/test.
Marcus, what you just said is classic psycho babble.
Undeserving candidates get weeded out eventually. All you can do for now is stop wasting your time bitching on a forum and work harder.
Marcus -
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. There are many ways to gauge aptitude; I just don't believe race is one of them, so I don't think it should be used as a screening mechanism.
If we concede that success/aptitude cannot be measured, how do we make a case for or against affirmative action in the first place? There's no way to say a population sample is more/less successful. In any economic capacity, you need to choose variables with the understanding that there are unmeasurable limitations.
My point was that studies have shown again and again that the disparity we would ascribe to being a minority is instead attributable to poverty. A black person may be more likely to have lower GPA / test scores / etc, but that is because blacks have a higher poverty rate. White people are less likely to come from an impoverished background, though those that do have similar disparities.
That is why it doesn't surprise me that nigo has done well for himself, and that is why I support a liberal economic policy that uses personal income as a primary means of redistribution, not race. I might be inclined to support an initial 'boost' for a competitive candidate who had a rought upbringing, but I'm not about to hand it out because he/she is a minority. We ought reward acheivement, not advocate mediocracy via discrimination and bigotry.
holy shit massive text. You should probably add some spaces so people don't just skip over what you wrote.
nigro did you do a turkey-neck head bob + double snap after you finished typing all that?
Haha you're all assholes. It's Nigo. Notice the lack of R.
I think Nigo, Yesman and Marcus all have extremely good points!
I support racial-blind policies that help the low-income teenagers to help them go to college, etc (with conditions such as they have to keep their GPA above 3.0 or something like that). This helps with breaking out of the vicious cycle of a person's family being poor, and him/her not being able to go to college because he has to work at a young age to support the family, or he can't go to a desired college because of the lack of financial supplement from the government, etc.
EXACTLLY.
Getting back to the original question...
When you apply to an IB, you don't apply "as" a certain race. This isn't like a college application, where you check a box indicating your ethnicity. You submit a resume, may be they interview you, and if they do, they're not going to ask what race you are. They'll decide if you're a URM by looking at you, or by your last name.
As far as paying for college. If you are poor, government will pay for your fucking education!!!
I went to top10 public school, government paid for EVERYTHING. I am graduating with about $23k in loans which I'll pay off in first 2 years if I get into banking
I don't even consider myself or my family poor, but government does. I wear nice clothing, have my own car, and actually have a lifestyle better than average student.
P.S.: being from Europe fucking sucks. For everyone I am white, even though I am part of extremely small race (about 1,500,000 people in the whole World).
P.P.S.: I know multiple kids of 'color' who got into target schools with GPA/SAT/EC waaaay below the average target student.
Estonian?
If you are Estonian, tell me how you say "12 months"?
This argument comes up way too much to the point where its becoming that every white person who doesn't make into banking or a job or position they want yells racism at the first black or hispanic they see. What if you just weren't good enough and they were better? There's an argument, look I'm at a BB this summer and I can say without a doubt that I have yet to meet anyone who didn't deserve to be there. People got there in different ways but they earned their way there.
I've met athletes who just had to call up an old captain, people who used contacts within a firm, people who worked incredibly hard at school and some who strapped their boots. Banks aren't just hiring diversity for the sake of diversity. They are hiring incredibly talented people and for the first time people are seeing and recognizing that talent comes in different colors, shapes, backgrounds and personalities. Affirmative Action is almost becoming people's argument to having people in a firm who don't look like them.
I'm African American and a woman, I go to a top 10 school, I run various clubs, and I'm not from a "ghetto". I'm talented and the idea that I got in because of my race or even gender is ridiculous. It's the simple fact that I was better than my peers whether they be black, white, or asian. Good people find ways to succeed and I believe that and great firms aren't sitting around hiring diversity they're picking the best people. Within that pool of best people some will excel, some will fail, its a fact of life. The problem is when 1 black or hispanic fails for many people it becomes an affirmative action candidate who failed and everyone is AA. Simply put that particular person sucked at their job, the same way the worst guy at my desk is a Connecticut bred guy but he doesn't to me represent every white guy, he's just another guy who sucks at his job.
Doible
So you're basically saying you DON'T support AA, for basically the same reasons John McWhorters doesn't support it--because it stereotypes all minorities. And you know what--you're right.
I just read this entire thread. First off, Rickets's comment is mad funny. I think everybody pretty much lost sight of the original question.
Secondly, as an Asian-American, I have this to say. We may be considered the "model minority" but that term was invented by a white man. Nigo makes a good point when he points out the discrimination that comes with being a "model minority". If we're such good minorities, why are we constantly passed over for positions of leadership? How many high ranking government officials do you know are asian? What about CEOs? What about high ranking military officers? Don't just rat off a few names because you know damn well that the percentage of Asians in the country doesn't correlate to the percentage of them in leadership positions.
There is a relatively high percentage of Asians in IBs and medicinal positions because the qualifications of those positions are based a lot on work-ethic, intelligence, and self-presentation. The positions based on perception such as CEOs, military officers, government officials, hell even actors, are often occupied by white men because of the perception of the white man as the confident alpha dog type. I'm not saying these white men are unqualified, but rather perception may have prevented other candidates from advancing to these positions.
Finally, please dont tell me that Asians dont get leadership positions because they lack the leadership qualities. Asians often dont have enough opportunities to develop these qualities because of the inherent stereotype that rules the perceptions of other.
Those are just my thoughts on the issue.
I'm sorry, but this is an absurd post. Asians represent about 3% of the U.S. population! Of course they will have sparse representation in leadership roles nationwide! It also doesn't help that asians often congregate together and hangout only with other Asians--that COULD be why they don't have the contacts to move up.
Asians, Indians and Eastern Europeans kill the racism argument posited by some Black people. End of story.
Yeah Nigro lost me at Aunt Jemima.
Hey, jackass (Carlton Banks), I read your post--you're an asian complaining about inherent discrimination in the "white American" system. Tell me, how many white CEOs are in Korea, or how many MPs (parlimentarian representatives) are white in Japan, or how many university presidents are white in China or Taiwan? You make it sound like white people are the devil--hello?! Your family came to America for a reason--probably because even though there is innate prejudice in all societies, white American males afforded your family the best opportunity to succeed compared to any other place on earth. If asians don't like being passed up for leadership roles, maybe they should expand their contact base outside 3% of the American population.
As a white male, I get pretty goddmann sick of people complaining about white males, like my Persian friends do--I'd like to know how open and free their dictatorship is toward non-Muslim whites. So quit complaining about white men and go do some godda*n work to earn it.
Def agree.
Did someone hi-jack VA Tech's account and post something reasonable?
Quick, change your password and delete this comment before this guy gives you a bad rep.
When white man does not succeed, he has no one and nothing to blame but himself.
Carlton Banks, if Asians are so oppressed here in the US, how come Asians make up 2nd largest group in top universities and at the same time represent only 5% of the US population? And how come UC Berkeley, the best public school in the US has more Asians, than Caucasian students?
Oh and final question. Giving same stats coming out of high school (same GPA/SAT/etc.), who deserves 'admission': 2nd generation Hispanic-American, 3rd generation African-American, or white kid who moved from Europe in the middle of high school? I've seen minorities with worse stats than mine getting into target schools. They had 17 years to get their shit together before applying to colleges here in America, I had 17 months. That's why I am strongly against AA, and believe that minorities should not get special treatment.
You do realize the numbers of Asians enrolled in top universities would be even higher without affirmative action? Why don't you get over yourself, even if all affirmative action policies were removed, your spot at that target college would have gone towards some Asian kid with higher stats than you.
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf
But you know what? As an Asian that supposedly stands to gain the most, at least in college admissions, with the removal of AA I think the negative impact to underrepresented minorities enrolled in college would be far worse.
At the end of the day, you can choose to pass blame for your inadequacy to institutional policies that "screwed" you over, or you can accept you have to work a little bit harder.
hiit, I'd much rather have this spot taken by an Asian kid smarter than me, than a Hispanic who is not even close to my level.
Screw minorities and affirmative action. All the reasons give for affirmative actions are good and noble, all the ways that it is used is NOT. (Try and decode that and you will know).
P.S. I am not a white guy nor an American citizen so I have no vested interest in what you people do, but just my two cents.
Things I’ve stated:
“As I’ve stated, affirmative action is poorly thought out attempt to create diversity.”
“I agree that hiring should be merit-based only, but the sad truth is that this hasn’t been the case.”
“agencies charged with overseeing civil rights compliance have too few resources to make the laws meaningful”
“I am certainly in favor of the concept that AA [attempts to] promote: diversity in viewpoints, and in experiences, but I don’t agree with the way that institutions go about trying to artificially create diversity.”
“AA assumes that all minorities are poor, and are unable to attain things without preferential treatment, and asking about candidates’ backgrounds would establish a more “complete portrait” of the candidate.”
To summarize, I am for DIVERSITY, but against AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, because it’s too flawed on too many levels.
PussInBoots, I believe that you’re an intelligent person, and considering the fact that you’re an immigrant, it seems that you’ve done very well for yourself. What I’m concerned about is that your post furthers a myth that I’d like to dispel: black anti-intellectualism. During the travesty of slavery, many people believed in Drapetomania; a condition that supposedly kept the slaves from seeing “how good they had it”. The subordination of people of color has often been justified by retarded stereotypes, even when evidence contradicted the illogic of those stereotypes.. I offer these examples;
Segregation was needed to allow blacks to develop a “limit to their capacities.”
Japanese Americans needed to be interned for “national security”, because it was in their DNA to be disloyal to America.
Hawaiiens were barbarians in need of some Jesus talk.
Fillopinos were incapable of forming a stable government. -so on, and so forth.
It didn’t matter that minorities were loyal to America, more so than justified. It didn’t matter that non-white nations had long had self-government before being “discovered” by Europeans. The myths would linger even after social movements forced changes in the society that had nurtured them. Newer stereotypes would emerge to take the place of the older myths. The newest myth would be that blacks are culturally inferior, and their families dysfunctional. Even Asians, like Dinesh D’ Souza have stepped up to the plate, offering their own pseudo-psycho books, impervious to statistics, or logic. The oft-repeated claim that black youth don’t do as well because the black family places less value on education is absurd. Some claim that blacks have adopted the attitude that doing well in school is "acting white," and thus have sabotaged their own futures by downgrading intellectual pursuits. Let me throw some statistics at ya:
National Center for Education Statistics indicates that 43 percent of black fourth-graders do one hour or more of homework per night, as do 45 percent of whites and 47 percent of Hispanics.
Black and Hispanic fourth-graders are both more likely than whites that age to do more than one hour of homework, with 18 percent of Hispanics, 17 percent of blacks, but only 15 percent of whites putting in this amount of study time daily.
Although Asians demonstrate more study time at this level, the differences between them and other students of color are not substantial: about 21 percent of Asian students in fourth grade study more than one hour.
Black twelfth graders are more than twice as likely as whites to have perfect attendance (16 percent versus 7.4 percent).
Half of the poorest students work with their parents on lessons three or more times weekly, while only a third of the wealthiest students do.
Here is no substantial difference between white and black students in terms of whether their parents attend parent-teacher conferences or school meetings.
NCES statistics indicate that black children are more likely than whites to often spend time with their parents on homework.
One mid-1990s questionnaire of black high school seniors found that black seniors were just as likely as white seniors to say that a good marriage and family life were "extremely important" life goals.
Whites are more likely than blacks to have missed seven or more days during the last semester.
32 percent more likely than whites to say that professional success and accomplishment were "extremely important" life goals.
26 percent more likely than whites to say "making a contribution to society" was extremely important.
75 percent more likely than whites to say "being a leader in their community" was an extremely important life goal.
Black seniors were also 21 percent more likely than whites to attend weekly religious services and almost twice as likely as whites to say that religion played a "very important role in their lives.
Substantially unequal outcomes are the result of substantially unequal opportunities:
Black students are only half as likely as whites to be placed in high-tracked English or math classes.
And 2.4 times more likely than whites to be placed in remedial classes.
When kids from lower-income families, disproportionately of color, correctly answer all math questions on a standardized test, they are no more likely to be placed in advanced or college tracks than children from upper-income families who missed a fourth of the questions.
26 percent less likely to be placed in advanced tracks than upper-income persons with comparably perfect scores.
No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning by Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom Simon and Schuster
Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement by John U. Ogbu, with Astrid Davis Erlbaum Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life by Annette Lareau University of California Press
Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society by Michael K. Brown and others University of California Press
There Are No Shortcuts by Rafe Esquith Pantheon
Final Test: The Battle for Adequacy in America's Schools by Peter Schrag New Press
City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education by Pedro A. Noguera Teachers College Press
Voluptate quia aperiam voluptatibus laborum necessitatibus odit at. Natus ut et libero at ut laboriosam. Ipsam nulla quis magni autem. Fugiat modi sunt sunt temporibus cum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Praesentium quas sapiente quaerat et unde consequatur necessitatibus. Quam hic tenetur odio molestias ex cupiditate similique. Et rerum sunt aut saepe doloremque reiciendis et qui. Est est atque temporibus ut.
Quis nesciunt mollitia sunt illum facilis vel vero. Aspernatur rerum culpa nesciunt laudantium atque veniam veritatis. Molestiae voluptatem nulla ipsam et laboriosam accusamus. Enim quidem ut aut. Ea sit doloremque et quis. Veritatis fuga ex tempore aut sint nam. Tempore ullam voluptatem qui.
Dolorem dolor et sit molestiae autem iure ut. Facere quia est temporibus molestias. At quia aut non quis.
Fugit excepturi cum qui impedit ipsum. Recusandae explicabo temporibus maxime provident.
Cumque sapiente quo sapiente odio. Aliquid cumque asperiores eos molestiae labore voluptatum. Libero qui sit fugiat veritatis et.