Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right. But even if we accept the premise that it's necessary to tip the scales to balance out past wrongs, this begs the question: for how long? When will it come to pass that affirmative action has accomplished its goal and now everyone is "even"?
Emily Choi doesn't strike me as being all that smart, if she's only capable of learning if she's around people who don't look like her. And I'm willing to bet that the diversity that she praises is only skin deep; I doubt that there are too many Trump supporters, for example, among her fellow students.
If being a "person of color" means that the threshold for admittance is lower than it is for a "person of non-color" (or whatever whites and Asians, collectively, are called), this would be an institutional advantage. So what are the disadvantages that they face?
For as long as the unequal proportion of wealth distribution regarding wages, career advancement, education, and other economic factors is a problem due to discrimination that has affected marginalized groups for decades in this country.
Most people are aware that when you are around people that have similar backgrounds and experiences, you are likely to progress further academically. That has been studied over and over again. Clearly, it's not the only criteria the school reviews when accepting admission. That is the issue with this thread. There are clearly misconceptions that people have about AA that are not true. Again, white women have the biggest advantage when AA is applied, not minorities.
A disadvantage which would be overwhelmingly applied to non-minority student admissions:
A federal trial alleging bias against Harvard University underscored a cold truth of the school's admissions process on Wednesday: that money and pedigree can open doors that academics alone
might not.
Students for Fair Admissions, the group suing revealed a series of internal Harvard emails in which top university officials take special note of students with ties to major donors.
The lawsuit also opposes policies that provide an admissions edge to students tied to donors or alumni, saying it works against racial minorities-called legacy preferences are common at elite colleges but have come under fire from some campus activists who say it takes seats away from low-income and first-generation students. While the practice is commonly known, it's rarely discussed as openly as in the Harvard emails revealed Wednesday.
If you understand the history of discrimination, you understand that minorities and marginalized groups in the US have a pattern of being at a disadvantage economically going back decades, it spills over for generations affecting wealth, education, health, and other social-economic disadvantages.
There is a reason for AA. The reasons it is applied in this country is much deeper than people include in this thread. The reasons include discrimination, wealth, education, career gaps, and disadvantages of marginalized groups in this country.
Should it be review and adjusted when numbers, education, social economic gaps improve? Yes, of course. This country should always apply laws and regulation based on a substantial change.
Not every qualified person can make the cut because there are limited opportunities, and it depends on how the cut is determined. Open borders to select people from 6 billion is BS.
Again, if you can't make the cut, that's because you are NOT qualified.
If you still don't understand this, think this way, you may think you are qualified, but others are more qualified than you, and the bar for qualification is raised above you.
If there is unlimited opportunities, there wouldn't be a need for qualification, would it? The whole point of qualification is to be selective.
No thanks. I'd agree if we had closed borders and weren't maximizing diversity. This would just be a de facto gift to East Asian voting democrats. I want to give away nothing to diversity since diversity has given me no benefit.
I spent my whole life as a white American male shouldering the affirmative action and diversity burden where my relative merit didn't count and wasn't rewarded, and now the reward is more reward for Asian merit who counter vote me .
If it's anonymous and just on grades and scores, all you have to do is perform better on the tests and in class. You don't need to shoulder any affirmative action or diversity burden in that scenario--you just need to do a better job, right?
I would simply demand that schools remove race and ethnicity from applications or not choose one. I think it's stupid to use inclusion as an excuse. What competitive sport team have inclusion?
Again, if you can't make the cut, that's because you are NOT qualified.
If you still don't understand this, think this way, you may think you are qualified, but others are more qualified than you, and the bar for qualification is raised above you.
If there is unlimited opportunities, there wouldn't be a need for qualification, would it? The whole point of qualification is to be selective.
There's only one reason more Asian Americans 'don't make the cut.' Biased ratings by Harvard's admissions officers. The only low category for Asian Americans is the 'personality' traits ratings, such as kindness, courage, helpfulness, well-liked. Even in that subjective category, Asian-Americans received much better scores from alumni interviewers than from admissions officers.
On every other measure, including extra-curricular activities, Asian Americans 'make the cut' at a rate greater than the % admitted.
This thread is kind of nonsense. Have you ever walked around the Harvard campus? It's just about half Asian/Indian. They're the ones with the tiger parents who grind them through K-12 with perfect grades, spend tons on private tutoring to nail the SAT exam, and coach them daily with professionals to do activities so they have a "story" on their application. You end up with a bunch of clones. They're gaming the admissions criteria. If you didn't use some other kind of criteria to account for that, you'd have nothing but Asians/Indians admitted.
All the elite universities do this and it's not just Harvard. Some tiger parent is always going to sue when their kid doesn't get admitted because that also games the system. I can't blame the colleges for wanting a blend of free range kids who didn't live that massively structured tiger parent upbringing.
Does the application demographics match the US population?
Does the admittance?
Quote:
Can you do basic math?
Can you do basic logic?
Maybe you'd care to share why you were turned down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole point of qualification is to be selective.
.
