Why are Asian students used to target other racial minorities and AA?
If you feel like only Asians need to show some genuine personality in their college applications and that's racist, why not compare to all people from all backgrounds? Wouldn't that be a stronger argument than targeting a specific race or historically disadvantaged class of minorities?
I understand that consistent knocks on a group of people for a specific quality like personality should not be acceptable, but I don't see how it is generally wrong to expect a wider degree of scrutiny to foster a more dynamic campus as opposed to a bland one that doesn't reflect the cultural makeup of this country.
Asian students are NOT used to target other racial minorities.
They are just a good and very obvious example of the damages of Affirmative Action. In reality, it affects other minorities as well - South Asians (Indians, Pakistani, Sri Lankans, etc..) and Jewish Americans. Not to mention that AA actually hurts the minorities it intends to help. Moreover, it completely marginalizes poor white students on the basis of their race (Btw a poor white applicant and a poor black applicant both equally qualified in academics, extra-curricular, and "personality", who do you think is more likely to be given admission?). Dare I say, it sounds like systematic racism to me.
Apart from the ethical argument on AA being inherently racist, there also is an economic problem with it. Look up the "Stable marriage problem" or "Matching problem". It's a very broad class of problems that deal with what an "optimal" match is. In the case of college admissions, match between students and colleges. In the job market, that's interviewees and employers. Essentially what happens is that by imposing a certain "quota" (in quotations because an explicit quota is not allowed, but through careful and sneaky word-smithing, AA is a de facto quota), you get an sub-optimal match. This sub-optimality hurts both the students and the colleges. To be more precise, you're not always guaranteed to reach an optimal solution. You may, but it's rare. In fact, there are some researchers trying to design AA in a way that an optimal solution is possible, but doesn't seem all that successful.
Just to help you out. I think you need to slowly unpack the argument about AA being "damaging". Cite somethings and construct your argument, because this is a complex argument, where I think it seems to rest on moving goal posts, and it would help to establish some consistency. What do you mean that Asians "are just a good and very obvious example of damages"?
Also, the entire 'marginalization' argument here is taken out of context. For one, I'm asking why is a black/Latino student mutually exclusive with an Asian student gaining admission? Marginalization has real context, like significant historical context, that you are downplaying and undermining. The damages you speak of are very hard to wrap the head around. The other issue I have is deeper context. For example, I've heard of black students at wharton being the only black kid in his class. And you can similarly look at the numbers on wall street and see that there is a difference in how students pursue certain career paths that is impacted by college admissions.
His thesis here seems to be about stable matching in markets, which you don't seem to be that concerned with, but this is a strawman argument.
Representation versus Assimilation: How do Preferences in College Admissions Affect Social Interactions?
Do Racial Preferences Reduce Minority Learning in Law Schools?
What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice
How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It
CLASS IN AMERICAN LEGAL EDUCATION
Essentially, it breaks down into 3 issues - 1) Less social cohesion through AA (you know the whole idea of diversity hires/acceptance and what not) and social discrimination; 2) Economic mismatch (ie. African American student who would've done perfectly well at Tier 2 school ending up at Tier 1 and struggling, eventually falling through the cracks.); 3) AA shifting major program preferences of African Americans towards less "lucrative" fields.
I mean that Asian Americans, by the numbers, are the most impacted by AA Marginalization is taken out of what context? Marginalization by definition is "treatment of a certain group as if they are insignificant", which is exactly what the poor whites face.That one black guy at Wharton sticks out because of the color of his/her skin? Who's to say that he didn't come from an affluent background? What if there was only one guy in that class whose family lived below the poverty line, and he happened to be white? Why does marginalization only apply to Hispanic and Black people? Because they are the most vocal of their plight? DOUBLE STANDARD.
It's not a strawman. "Markets" include education. Colleges "sell" their services to the students, whose families (or whoever pays) are the "buyers". As a matter of fact, Alvin Roth provides examples of school matching.As a wealthy, white and progressive college president I hereby declare that in these trying times, now more than ever, black people have the God-given right to fall into debt to enrich me and my fellow white executives and let no filthy white supremacist tell them otherwise!
The success of Asian-Americans and their extremely low crime rate are very uncomfortable facts for liberals, as their central thesis is that "systemic white racism" holds minorities down, preventing them from achieving success.
AA is terrible policy as it subjects applicants to different standards based on their race. Elite white liberals who control these institutions support AA for two key reasons: 1) AA support allows them to virtue signal about how they are helping blacks and latinos, and 2) increased AA leads to lower Asian admission to elite schools, thus shielding their kids from academic competition with Asians.
Ah yes, the model minority myth, ignoring (i) the history of really, really institutionalized racism (slavery and Jim Crow, every heard of it) against black people not to mention other minorities, as well as (ii) that Asian Americans are not a monolith, and this stuff about "well Asians..." largely applies to the specific wave of highly educated Asian immigrants who came in the 70's and 80's but not earlier/ later waves of economic immigrants, nor the refugees, who regularly have comparable (pretty shitty) educational, health, and economic outcomes to other minorities.
It's the white liberal paradox. They are the ones who get to decide what's racist. Doesn't matter what minorities actually think.
Dare I say, it's almost like self-denial of their own racist tendencies. Kind of like how closeted homosexuals back in the days were notably homophobic (ehem J. Edgar Hoover).
Actually, a lot of East Asian immigrants come from working class backgrounds. For instance, Asians in NYC have a higher poverty rate than blacks but make up 70%+ of the students at the city's elite magnet high schools, where admission is determined by a test in 8th grade. If you look at SAT scores by race and income, high income blacks still underperform lower income whites and Asians.
No one is denying that slavery and segregation played a role in shaping Black America. There are several key questions where conservatives and liberals tend to disagree: 1) does systemic racism as properly defined still exist in the U.S., and 2) how much of the disparity between blacks and other groups can be explained by the legacy of slavery/Jim Crow/discrimination vs. other factors?
I don't think systemic racism exists currently. If America were indeed systemically racist (as opposed to there being individuals who are racist), it must be the case that actual racists control the major institutions such as government, courts, corporations, universities, media, etc., and racist norms and values are widely accepted and pervade American society. That is clearly not the case. In fact, it's the opposite. Look at how virtually every influential institution bends the knee to BLM and donated large sums of money to leftist causes. Look at how even sports leagues such as NASCAR/NFL/MLB/NBA implement initiatives to demonstrate their support of racial justice. And Americans as a people are certainly far less racist than several decades ago. Look at the trend of how Americans respond to questions on whether they're comfortable with a black President (98%) or are comfortable with interracial relationships (90%).
The second question is far more complex. It's a topic that we can talk about for ages. My personal view is that the breakdown of the two-parent household in Black America and the sharp rise in crime, both of which are trends that began during the Great Society Era of the mid-late 1960s, have played a bigger role in Black America's current predicament than slavery and Jim Crow. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Coleman Hughes, have written extensively on the issue of racial disparities, and I find their work to be significantly more convincing than those of Ta-nehisi Coates/Ibram Kendi/Tim Wise/Robin DiAngelo.
I used to think that the "cultural/racial/ethnic" makeup of the country/state should be reflected in all professions/educational institutions. However, this is a horrible metric. Rather, you should look at the "acceptance rates" of each racial and/or socio-economic group.
91% of nurses in the US are female and 9% male. What does that tell us? Are males systematically discriminated from becoming nurses? Should we strive to achieve 50-50 split between females and males? The answer is heck no. Why? Because more women prefer to be nurses.
If female applicants were more likely to get nursing jobs than men did, then maybe there is a problem. Even if this is the case, why does this occur? Is it because the ratio of qualified to unqualified is higher for women? If so, why is that the case and is that something we should fix? Is it because the employers are biased against men in some way? If so, what can we do to reduce that bias? You see the point here?
Someone on this site once asked "Why aren't there more Asian Americans in executive positions of major American companies?". The real reason is that simply less Asian-Americans compete for those positions. Instead you see unusually higher number of Asian-Americans in engineering and medicine.
Now let's talk college demographics. What are the acceptance rates for each racial group? I'm willing to bet that Asian-Americans and Indian Americans face the lowest acceptance rates. If you were look at the acceptance rate of qualified candidates (which unfortunately is not available), then this rate might even be lower. African-Americans, on average, have lower preference to attend top tier colleges.
Most of the times, they are unaware that it's the choice they can even make (not that they don't know what Harvard is, but they just don't even think they can even try!). This is the problem, not the fact that African Americans make up 13% of the US population but 1 digit percentage in universities or in finance.
This is correct. There will always be disparities when comparing large groups across various metrics. Liberals selectively focus on certain disparities to perpetuate the narrative that "systemic white racism" is holding certain groups down. For instance, they complain about black and women underrepresentation at tech firms, but when you take into account the % of STEM graduates who are black or women, that explains the disparity. The Left and BLM have deployed similar "logic" with regards to police killings. They argue that racism is what is driving killings of blacks. But is that what is really driving the disparity. Let's look at some facts. In 2019 there were 10 million arrests nationwide but only 1,000 police killings. Out of those killings, ~250 were black, and only 10 of them were unarmed. Now, that means that blacks accounted for 25% of police killings. Since blacks are 13% of the U.S. population, does this prove racism? No. Because one has to take into account the fact that blacks commit nearly half of all violent crime in this country. Due to this unfortunate reality, it results in cops patrolling black neighborhoods at higher rates and being involved in hostile interactions with black suspects at higher per capita rates. Also, research shows that black cops are just as tough on black suspects as white cops are. Are there white racist cops? Yes. But the data does not show that white racism is the key factor driving these killings.
I'm a little mixed on this. Police brutality is real and it certainly isn't due to racist reasons. In reality, the police isn't racist at all.
But what troubles me is the fact that more African-American people commit crimes, which in turn has increased the probability that an African-American person is approached by the police (police of any racial backgrounds). In a sense, this falls in the category of systematic racism, because it does propagate some form of discrimination/double standard on the basis of race. It just isn't deliberately racist.
This is the reason why I hate all the "Defund the police" nonsense. There are 2 issues with the police - 1) The unions are too strong and can't prevent police brutality, 2) African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than other racial groups.
We should be treating the disease by 1) Curving down the power of police unions, 2) Providing better education & career choices (or whatever factors have some causal relationship with crime) for African-Americans so that we bring down those crime rates. Instead, people are focusing on the symptoms (ie. defund the police, "All cops are bastards", etc...).
This is true but it is only part of the reason more Asian American do not rise to the level of executives of companies. Another reason which may be somewhat correlated with your basis is Asian Americans may have a lower risk tolerance as it applies to employment. In addition, there is probably one other factor, which is social assimilation. Let's compare Jews to Asians. Both groups have disproportionate representation in top schools and for the same reason: they place a substantial emphasis on education. Here is where they differ: mainstream Jews take more risk and assimilate socially to a higher degree than do Asians Americans. For these reasons, Jews tend rise to higher levels than do Asian Americans.
What is the exact impact of assimilation in the job market? I'm talking more about the economics of assimilation here.
In any sort of situation that involves two parties making a decision (ie. School accepts a student and student accepts the offer, Employee gives an offer and a candidate accepts, Sarah swipes right on Milton, I swipe right on her). Both parties have preferences and when those preferences align, you have a match. This is why things like school acceptance, job search, and marriage boils down to the same class of problems, mathematically/economically speaking.
Is assimilation a factor that impacts the preference of the employers? Or is it a factor that impacts the preference of the candidate? Or both?
I think it'd be easier to argue that assimilation impacts the preference of the candidates. An Asian American person who feels like an outsider would prefer to become a professional with hard skills. Like engineers, doctors, etc... If you were to look back into history, it's not difficult to see that successful minorities tend to specialize in couple sectors that often requires hard skills more than softer things like connections. Or fields that the mainstream population does not focus on.
And I used to think institutions should make a stronger push for different groups by actively pursuing poorer people at the primary and secondary levels. No longer do I think it's something that should be done, even though I wouldn't object to it if that were the case. When Edward Blum and white washed Asians attempt to actively oppose practices that lead to more URM gaining admission at schools, it's scary at worst, frustrating at best. You can't tell me this isn't weird and an attempt to signal to some racist elements in this country.
You are either misconstruing my point or making an unfair and hasty assumption on what the message I'm trying to get across is.
My whole point is that focus should be on increasing the African-American preference and qualifications to attend top tier colleges. Because the factors that impact those preferences are rooted in disadvantage. This is the main problem.
Where the hell is this even coming from? Institutions should be doing all sorts of outreach programs to encourage poorer people to study hard and make good educational choices. Those programs help shift those preferences I mentioned. What's more is that under-privileged communities just need better education in general PERIOD. K-12, trade/vocational schools, colleges, I mean the whole deal.I'm building on arguments made by a Black man with an Econ PhD from U. Chicago but I guess I'm white-washed. How simple.
Btw WallStreetOasis.com kind of frustrated the way these posts against the "silence majority" get censored. I mean, posts against blacks using the Edward Blum case, sit at the top of the stack for weeks.
I made a case building on arguments laid out by a Black man with an Econ PhD from U of Chicago. Don't know who Edward Blum even is.
Lookup Thomas Sowell. Thx.
Labore odio ullam temporibus voluptatem et eveniet. Ad aut blanditiis quidem inventore eum esse.
Occaecati ipsa blanditiis hic ab. Praesentium suscipit id beatae est nobis. Dolorem provident quam facere aut occaecati sapiente.
Ipsam qui ipsam qui beatae. Et non nihil minima enim facilis. Non rerum rerum consequatur dolorem. Esse qui aut nam pariatur nulla et. Sunt itaque quibusdam et qui aut porro. Quos ea expedita quia facilis rerum itaque. Quibusdam quos dolores eos quas inventore numquam nemo.
Quisquam est doloremque minima perspiciatis. Voluptate ducimus animi ex rem ullam necessitatibus ad. Ea accusamus quis doloremque laborum harum aliquam corporis. Aut repellat deserunt in quo cum quo. Nostrum et omnis dolor exercitationem ipsa facere at delectus.
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...