Support NeoGAF

[AstroZombie]

meritocracy would be better than AA or croneyism in the workplace and academia.

 

[Littlefang]

Are you sure that's not just a stereotype?

Even within competitive fields such as science or math, Asians still have to score higher than their white counterparts for the same spots. Take a look at the med school admissions chart a few pages back.

Sorry I can't find any information of the ethnic breakdown of any field of study so I apologize for that comment! The med school chart is too vague to judge whether the applications process is racist or not. It doesn't tell us how many applicants each ethnic group had. Of course if each ethnicity had the same amount of applicants this chart would definitely show prejudice against Asians, but for all we know there were a lot more Asian applicants than any other ethnicity.

for undergrad admissions you usually don't apply to a major.

Not a major necessarily, but you definitely need to make the decision between arts and science. I didn't apply to Harvard so I don't know if they make you choose your intended field of study ahead of time but I know many schools do.

 

[Kieli]

Truth. I was a god damn diversity admission to the law school I attended as a straight white male given my socioeconomic background (working class, only family member with college degree, family all laborers or trades or other blue collar jobs). I wasn't competing with minorities for spots, I was competing with similarly qualified wealthy applicants across the racial spectrum (predominantly white) who had a far easier time getting to the same point and having to distinguish from the wealthy whites because on (non financial aid) papers we were the same.

If you want holistic concepts then fuck off with the emphasis on extracurriculars and instrument talents and all of those socioeconomic proxies. Drill down to what matters and contemplate the background of students and the ease or difficulty they had getting there. Class and income matters.

I know full well that my law school admitted well to do African and Afro Caribbean immigrants as part of their diversity aims to increase black enrollment. That's despicable and it's a total undermining of what affirmative action is supposed to achieve.

I somewhat agree with this. Taking the edge case, a particular person from poor/lower socioeconomic strata simply wouldn't have the time or means to waddle away/pad their resume with "VP of Club", "Volunteer of Hospice", "National Pianist", "lifeguard/coastguard", or other such stuff. They could be pre-occupied with minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet (because there are only so many scholarships, and I notice the top ones tend to go to people from middle to well-to-do families). Med school wise, "cashier" looks nowhere near as sexy.

I've seen articles where adcoms have acknowledged this socioeconomic inequality, but they don't seem to know how to deal with it because they need "well-rounded" applicants who demonstrate, through activities or otherwise, "exceptional leadership skills and community involvement".

 

[braves01]

meritocracy would be better than AA or croneyism in the workplace and academia.

Ideally, yes, but there are systemic disadvantages some groups face so there isn't the level playing field needed for true meritocracy.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

meritocracy would be better than AA or croneyism in the workplace and academia.

What is merit, though? Test scores? We know performance is based more on socioeconomic success and access versus true ability. They also don't really correlate to college success.

High school grades? A bit better I guess. But given the realities of the public school system, resources vary greatly and not every school, rigor of curriculum, quality of teacher, etc. is equal.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

It seems that the least privileged group gets the biggest boost by far according to the table.

I don't disagree with that. What I want to know is why a less privileged group (Asians) have to score higher than a more privileged group (whites)?

Until that is addressed, then my point stands. There is a problem of systemic racism against Asian Americans in higher education admissions.

 

[Kelsdesu]

Should we blame the legacies or the kids who buy their way in?

Nah, it's the blacks and the hispanics.

Thats the first thing I thought of.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

Thats the first thing I thought of.

Read the damn thread.

 

[freeofgreed]

I don't disagree with that. What I want to know is why a less privileged group (Asians) have to score higher than a more privileged group (whites)?

Until that is addressed, then my point stands. There is a problem of systemic racism against Asian Americans in higher education admissions.

This is actually a very good point that I hadn't thought of.

EDIT: I've thought about it a bit more, maybe it is because the average scores for asians is higher than whites and therefore they have to choose from the higher threshold for admission.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

This is actually a very good point that I hadn't thought of.

EDIT: I've thought about it a bit more, maybe it is because the average scores for asians is higher than whites and therefore they have to choose from the higher threshold for admission.

This is why Affirmative Action is so controversial in Asian American communities. Many of us, especially the ones who grew up here, recognize the importance of diversity in higher education. At the same time, in states where Affirmative Action is instituted, Asian enrollment drops, black and Hispanic enrollment increases, while white enrollment stays the same. Think about what is wrong with this: white enrollment should be dropping as well! But that isn't the case. Affirmative action has been used to justify decreasing the spots for one minority group in favor of another, while white enrollment has been protected.

Also, think about what you are saying in your edit. If Asian groups are testing higher, then they should have more spots compared to whites. If there is a higher threshold for a specific minority group, then that indicates a quota.

This has happened before, but thankfully it was challenged and is no longer in practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

 

[Kelsdesu]

Read the damn thread.

Did read thread.

Why do you assume I didn't?

Do not a agree with you.

I am more curious as to know how the H1b plays into all of this.

 

[Littlefang]

This is why Affirmative Action is so controversial in Asian American communities. Many of us, especially the ones who grew up here, recognize the importance of diversity in higher education. At the same time, in states where Affirmative Action is instituted, Asian enrollment drops, black and Hispanic enrollment increases, while white enrollment stays the same. Think about what is wrong with this: white enrollment should be dropping as well! But that isn't the case. Affirmative action has been used to justify decreasing the spots for one minority group in favor of another, while white enrollment has been protected.

Also, think about what you are saying in your edit. If Asian groups are testing higher, then they should have more spots compared to whites. If there is a higher threshold for a specific minority group, then that indicates a quota.

This has happened before, but thankfully it was challenged and is no longer in practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

But this isn't what these Asian groups are arguing. They are angry that AA is taking spots away from both the Asian and the white students.

 

[GameGuru59]

Also, think about what you are saying in your edit. If Asian groups are testing higher, then they should have more spots compared to whites. If there is a higher threshold for a specific minority group, then that indicates a quota.

This has happened before, but thankfully it was challenged and is no longer in practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

I think the point people are trying to make is that high test scores are not the only metric for who gets in. Moreover, if the objective of affirmative action is to correct past social ills, then arguably fewer Asians should be in these schools because often, Asians (particularly from the "far east" like Japan and China) are doing better on average than their white counterparts be almost every metric:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Jaf-zWrDmN9wytG7w&sig2=tcYNh61O13p36-HbUSi81w

 

[Future]

Its tricky looking at medical school numbers.

First, even if the blacks have higher acceptance rates at lower numbers, it doesn't mean they are unqualified or less qualified than others, because more often than not they reach the threshold of "good enough" academic competency to get through medical school. Furthermore, they often have life experiences that are important because they can help them treat their patients better in the future. Blacks are severely under-represented in medicine and need all the help they can get. Even with affirmative action in medical schools, black students comprise maybe 5-10% of the student body on average.



I suppose it would be better to say "race based affirmative action".

Isn't that a key point. I mean acceptance rates would be 100% if one black person applied and got accepted, which would look unfair on a chart but really mean nothing

To really be able to dissect these numbers you'd need to know the population demographics of a school, the number of applicants and their demographics, and then the percentage AND number of accepted people to understand the end result

 

[WARCOCK]

Also, think about what you are saying in your edit. If Asian groups are testing higher, then they should have more spots compared to whites. If there is a higher threshold for a specific minority group, then that indicates a quota.[/url]

Whites are about 15 times more numerous than asian americans. And the averages aren't markedly different. So whatever the average is, there must be many more whites in the upper distribution of the grade sample. So you will very likely find more whites in absolute terms with equal or higher grades/testing scores even though the average is lower. So the quotas are helping asians out in that respect.... I thought asians were universally good at maths/statistics.... jkjk

 

[Lamel]

Isn't that a key point. I mean acceptance rates would be 100% if one black person applied and got accepted, which would look unfair on a chart but really mean nothing

To really be able to dissect these numbers you'd need to know the population demographics of a school, the number of applicants and their demographics, and then the percentage AND number of accepted people to understand the end result

There are large enough sample sizes on a national scale, but you'll realize there are very few black applicants relative to Asians/Whites. Furthermore, its even rarer to find black applicants with top notch scores (for a variety of reasons). For any one year there may be thousands of white/asian applicants with 95%+ scores/grades, but only dozens of black applicants with those numbers (in the whole country!).

https://www.aamc.org/download/321514/data/factstable25-2.pdf

In the past 2 years there have been less than 100 black applicants with a 3.8+ GPA and 33+ MCAT (high scores).

Whereas there have been 2000+ Asians with those stats. and 5000+ Whites with those stats.


Finally, blacks still have an overall lower acceptance rate (37%) than whites or asians (both ~45%), even with AA in place.

 

[Otakumegane]

A big problem is that all Asians try to become lawyers and Doctors and Engineering like exclusively so we tend to crowd that area, being a bit over-represented as a result.

But it's true that Asian groups are discriminated against in the whole college selection process. If the admissions were based on scores alone though it would create too much of an influx in the very very few professions Asians all apply for.

And I'm saying that as an engineer.

 

[Valhelm]

A big problem is that all Asians try to become lawyers and Doctors and Engineering like exclusively so we tend to crowd that area, being a bit over-represented as a result.

But it's true that Asian groups are discriminated against in the whole college selection process. If the admissions were based on scores alone though it would create too much of an influx in the very very few professions Asians all apply for.

And I'm saying that as an engineer.

Are there many Asian lawyers? From my experience as a college student, almost no East Asian students study non-STEM fields. I've never met a person of East Asian descent doing pre-law, and the majority of Asian kids I know are studying biology or physics.

At my university, at least, the law and business school are dominated by white people (a huge chunk of whom are of Latin American descent) and Indian/Pakistani Americans.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

I think the point people are trying to make is that high test scores are not the only metric for who gets in. Moreover, if the objective of affirmative action is to correct past social ills, then arguably fewer Asians should be in these schools because often, Asians (particularly from the "far east" like Japan and China) are doing better on average than their white counterparts be almost every metric:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Jaf-zWrDmN9wytG7w&sig2=tcYNh61O13p36-HbUSi81w

Lol. Nope, Asians from the "Far East" haven't ever faced any social ills in the US. Japanese internment, Chinese Exclusion Act, Vincent Chin, bamboo ceiling...it's all rosy for those East Asians. Despite all that, they do so well, so of course they need to score higher to get into college than white people.

Funny thing - Asians might be the highest earners by demographic in the US, but that's because of higher education levels throughout the population. When area of residence and level of education is taken into account, Asians make less than whites: 8% less for native born Asian Americans, 30% less for foreign born immigrants.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/us-work-discrimination-asians-idUSTRE6B63EZ20101207

See why there are some angry Asian Americans like me? We have to score higher than white people to get into college, and then we earn less than white people at work. And people still refuse to believe that there is systemic racism affecting Asians in this freaking country.

 

[not psycho]

But this isn't what these Asian groups are arguing. They are angry that AA is taking spots away from both the Asian and the white students.

Exactly.

There is more than one argument here. One is whether or not, in the interest of diversity and addressing historical and current socioeconomic issues, race should be allowed to be a factor in admissions. This group appears to be saying "no", but income could:

"We are seeking equal treatment regardless of race," said Chunyan Li, a professor and civil rights activist, who said they'd rather universities use income rather than race in affirmative action policies.

And I disagree with their statement because income alone is a poor proxy for the issues we're dealing with.

Moreover, that complaint is silly because African Americans make up such a small percentage of admissions in the first place, and with the things they have to deal with, arguably they are simply more qualified if they overcome the odds (rather than being "less qualified" but getting in anyway).

Granted, the policies should be improved by taking into account location, income, etc in addition to race, so that more of the help would go to people who live here instead of wealthy African immigrants (who make up a large proportion of Black students at Ivies, and as a group are more likely to get a college degree than not only Asian immigrants, but America as a whole). But still, we're looking at small absolute numbers here.


---


The second issue is caps on Asian applicants. Note that Black students are basically irrelevant to this issue! There should not be cap on Asian applicants. It is also illegal for there to be one.

It is a tricky thing to prove for a few reasons:

1. Students are more than test score and GPA. It can be argued that relatively small differences in test scores and GPA are meaningless. Why should a poorly written standardized test be the final say on who gets in? GPA can also be manipulated by schools that don't even use the same scale (some go to 5.0). So how should students be admitted? We don't have any clear definition of "more qualified".

All these arguments seem to start from the idea that a badly constructed standardized test and arbitrary GPA should be the only things that matter.

On the other hand, if you allow things other than test scores and GPA, it will likely be possible to guess the race of the candidate, leaving it open for discrimination. Ugh.

2. The impact of legacy and money.

Recently legacy students made up 12-13% of Harvard undergraduates. I will guess that rich White people make up a disproportionate amount of those legacies. That skews the data, but if you want to argue against it you should argue against legacies. Not against AA.

I also found this: https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Pub_Minding the campus combined files.pdf

Which says that lower class Whites are the most discriminated against group in college admissions, going by scores. According to them, even lower class Asians are significantly more likely be accepted.

Based on that we may postulate that it is money and/or legacy, rather than race, being the primary advantage.

3. Simpson's Paradox

Simpson's paradox may be at play in admission rates.

This paradox is what happens when one group has a lesser overall admission rate, but can actually have a higher admission rate in each department. The reason for the lesser overall rate is applying to departments (or schools) which are harder to get in.

We would need more in depth data to know how much, if any, this explains. For example, the med school data may be explained if Asian candidates are more likely to apply to more selective schools, or to a greater number of selective schools each. And within-school data may be explained if Asian candidates are more likely to apply to more selective departments.

I will say that the data we have are highly suspicious and demand investigation.

 

[GameGuru59]

Lol. Nope, Asians from the "Far East" haven't ever faced any social ills in the US. Japanese internment, Chinese Exclusion Act, Vincent Chin, bamboo ceiling...it's all rosy for those East Asians. Despite all that, they do so well, so of course they need to score higher to get into college than white people.

Funny thing - Asians might be the highest earners by demographic in the US, but that's because of higher education levels throughout the population. When area of residence and level of education is taken into account, Asians make less than whites: 8% less for native born Asian Americans, 30% less for foreign born immigrants.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/us-work-discrimination-asians-idUSTRE6B63EZ20101207

See why there are some angry Asian Americans like me? We have to score higher than white people to get into college, and then we earn less than white people at work. And people still refuse to believe that there is systemic racism affecting Asians in this freaking country.

I never said Asians never faced social ills, I'm saying the measurables indicate that as a group, they're better off than even whites- indivualized pay grades and whatnot not withstanding. If the purpose of affirmative action is to improve the condition of groups discriminated against in the United States, does it really make sense to target resources toward the community that is doing better even than the majority?

I'm not real sympathetic toward the argument that Asians have to score higher than whites to get into schools. That's likely because the (apparent) cultural tradition of emphasis on high reliance on measurable like test scores within the Asian community has raised the average for the entire community. Moreover, going by the demographics, Asians SHOULD have higher test scores than everyone based on the fact they have the highest median income anyway.

Finally, responding to the statistics you cited. Even if it were wise to take into account the mitigating factors you cited, opening more space (an outsized amount) for Asians at Harvard does nothing to solve the issues you've cited. The purpose of affirmative action is to provide minorities with opportunities to access elite institutions so the might raise the standard of living for their own community. According to the statistics, this mission has been accomplished for Asians as a group. This isn't to say Asians shouldn't get more representation at schools for other reasons (diversity for diversity's sake), but it is to say that the fact Asian's test scores are higher doesn't mean more of them should be let in. California is wrestling mightily with an outsized population of Latinos and Asians at its elite schools, and its harming the education of the African Americans (according to the students there).

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

I never said Asians never faced social ills, I'm saying the measurables indicate that as a group, they're better off than even whites- indivualized pay grades and whatnot not withstanding. If the purpose of affirmative action is to improve the condition of groups discriminated against in the United States, does it really make sense to target resources toward the community that is doing better even than the majority?

I'm not real sympathetic toward the argument that Asians have to score higher than whites to get into schools. That's likely because the (apparent) cultural tradition of emphasis on high reliance on measurable like test scores within the Asian community has raised the average for the entire community. Moreover, going by the demographics, Asians SHOULD have higher test scores than everyone based on the fact they have the highest median income anyway.

Finally, responding to the statistics you cited. Even if it were wise to take into account the mitigating factors you cited, opening more space (an outsized amount) for Asians at Harvard does nothing to solve the issues you've cited. The purpose of affirmative action is to provide minorities with opportunities to access elite institutions so the might raise the standard of living for their own community. According to the statistics, this mission has been accomplished for Asians as a group. This isn't to say Asians shouldn't get more representation at schools for other reasons (diversity for diversity's sake), but it is to say that the fact Asian's test scores are higher doesn't mean more of them should be let in. California is wrestling mightily with an outsized population of Latinos and Asians at its elite schools, and its harming the education of the African Americans (according to the students there).

Lol. Do you really think Asians have it easier than whites in America, and should have resources taken away from them. Try being an Asian in America. Clearly you have no clue what it's like to be a minority in this country, and all the racism there is. And way to ignore the "individual pay grades". Yea, try always having to work harder for something all your life, and get less all your life. Just because of the color of your skin, and because "the group you belong to" is supposedly doing well.

Asians work towards getting higher test scores because the American educational system is supposed to be a meritocracy. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to penalize the highest achievers just because they are working harder than everyone else? There is an example of this happening before: quotas on Jewish students in the early 20th century. Now they're obviously highly (over)represented in academia, business, medicine, etc. Should we go back to punishing them for achieving highly?

I don't disagree with affirmative action to improve the representation of African American and Hispanic minorities in higher education. But when Asians have it harder than the average white person, there's something wrong.

 

[Valhelm]

Lol. Do you really think Asians have it easier than whites in America, and should have resources taken away from them. Try being an Asian in America. Clearly you have no clue what it's like to be a minority in this country, and all the racism there is. And way to ignore the "individual pay grades". Yea, try always having to work harder for something all your life, and get less all your life. Just because of the color of your skin, and because "the group you belong to" is supposedly doing well.

Asians work towards getting higher test scores because the American educational system is supposed to be a meritocracy. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to penalize the highest achievers just because they are working harder than everyone else? There is an example of this happening before: quotas on Jewish students in the early 20th century. Now they're obviously highly (over)represented in academia, business, medicine, etc. Should we go back to punishing them for achieving highly?

I don't disagree with affirmative action to improve the representation of African American and Hispanic minorities in higher education. But when Asians have it harder than the average white person, there's something wrong.

As a white person, could you educate me about the racism that you, as an Asian person, experience?

 

[not psycho]

But when Asians have it harder than the average white person, there's something wrong.

You haven't established that this is true, even restricting ourselves to scores alone (itself not a great criteria)

I posted a study which says that low class Asians are accepted more often than low class Whites, going by score. Poor Whites were the least likely to be accepted. Based on that, isn't it possible that it is a combination of money and legacy, rather than race, at work here?

Although average income may be higher for Asians, the top level of money and legacy is still disproportionately White. And we need to be looking at that top level for schools like Harvard.

Also there is the Simpson's Paradox question, which we need more data on.

 

[Kelsdesu]

Lol. Do you really think Asians have it easier than whites in America, and should have resources taken away from them. Try being an Asian in America. Clearly you have no clue what it's like to be a minority in this country, and all the racism there is. And way to ignore the "individual pay grades". Yea, try always having to work harder for something all your life, and get less all your life. Just because of the color of your skin, and because "the group you belong to" is supposedly doing well.

Asians work towards getting higher test scores because the American educational system is supposed to be a meritocracy. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds to penalize the highest achievers just because they are working harder than everyone else? There is an example of this happening before: quotas on Jewish students in the early 20th century. Now they're obviously highly (over)represented in academia, business, medicine, etc. Should we go back to punishing them for achieving highly?

I don't disagree with affirmative action to improve the representation of African American and Hispanic minorities in higher education. But when Asians have it harder than the average white person, there's something wrong.

Something about that sentence I don't like.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

As a white person, could you educate me about the racism that you, as an Asian person, experience?

I grew up in a pretty diverse neighborhood, so I was lucky to not have experienced a lot of racism growing up. The worst racism I experienced, ironically, was at the Ivy League institution where I attended undergrad. I'd probably encounter an unpleasant incident every couple days, reminding me that I was somehow different and unwanted.

I think a lot of people who don't grow up in diverse areas honestly believe the stereotypes out there about Asians. I can't tell you the countless "ching chong" and bad english accent bullshit I had to deal with or the jokes about not wanting to be in a car if I'm driving. Jokes about how all Asians look alike, and don't do anything but study. I had a roommate complain to me about how the "Asian competition" was ruining the curve for him (a white guy) in engineering school. There have been numerous times when I was on a date with a beautiful women (of various ethnicities), and some asshole would pass by and make a loud remark that she wouldn't sleep with me, or that I probably had a small penis. These incidents might not sound like much, but when they occur over and over again, it's tough not to become bitter.

Here's an old post I wrote about racism against Asians in America:
Asian voices are regularly silenced; we may be the "model minority", but we are neither to be seen nor heard. To everyone saying that there are not that many Asians in America - that's not true. There's 18 million of us. We're 5% of the population. That's 1 in 20, folks. Is 1 out of every 20 person on TV Asian? Is 1 out of every 20 member of Congress Asian? Not even close.

Where's the Asian American leading man? The only Asian characters you see on TV are tired emasculated heavily accented comic relief (Han from 2 Broke Girls or Raj from Big Bang Theory, for example.), the exotic female romantic interest for a white main character or the evil villain to be ultimately defeated by a white hero. Asians are one of the only races on TV where it's actively seen as OK to make fun of and stereotype, with no fear of repercussion. And that extends into every day life as well, where poorly imitated accents and jokes about squinty eyes and small penises are regularly seen as acceptable, when the slightest denigrating comment about any other ethnicity would fall under intense scrutiny.

Asians are subject to both physical and psychological violence in America; statistics show Asians are more likely to suffer bullying growing up than any other race, and commit suicide at higher rates than any other race. While Asians are high achievers and high earners, there's a well documented glass ceiling that prevents us from climbing the ranks of corporate leadership beyond middle management. And of course, there's the whole college admissions thing.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

You haven't established that this is true, even restricting ourselves to scores alone (itself not a great criteria)

I posted a study which says that low class Asians are accepted more often than low class Whites, going by score. Poor Whites were the least likely to be accepted. Based on that, isn't it possible that it is a combination of money and legacy, rather than race, at work here?

Although average income may be higher for Asians, the top level of money and legacy is still disproportionately White. And we need to be looking at that top level for schools like Harvard.

Also there is the Simpson's Paradox question, which we need more data on.

I don't think Simpson's Paradox is at play here. You don't usually choose a major or field of study during the college application process, with the exception of a few schools.

Legacies could definitely be a big factor, I agree.

Race cannot be ignored, though. Here's an article, from the NY Times that is pretty damning: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't disagree with that. What I want to know is why a less privileged group (Asians) have to score higher than a more privileged group (whites)?

Until that is addressed, then my point stands. There is a problem of systemic racism against Asian Americans in higher education admissions.

The former part is largely due to the children or the rich and Harvard aluni, not African-American applicants, something the original article mentions. And yet, they're focused on AA. Why?

I agree there's racism against Asian Americans in higher education. Brought this up before.

Here's an old post I wrote about racism against Asians in America:
Asian voices are regularly silenced; we may be the "model minority", but we are neither to be seen nor heard. To everyone saying that there are not that many Asians in America - that's not true. There's 18 million of us. We're 5% of the population. That's 1 in 20, folks. Is 1 out of every 20 person on TV Asian? Is 1 out of every 20 member of Congress Asian? Not even close.

Where's the Asian American leading man? The only Asian characters you see on TV are tired emasculated heavily accented comic relief (Han from 2 Broke Girls or Raj from Big Bang Theory, for example.), the exotic female romantic interest for a white main character or the evil villain to be ultimately defeated by a white hero. Asians are one of the only races on TV where it's actively seen as OK to make fun of and stereotype, with no fear of repercussion. And that extends into every day life as well, where poorly imitated accents and jokes about squinty eyes and small penises are regularly seen as acceptable, when the slightest denigrating comment about any other ethnicity would fall under intense scrutiny.

Huge issue.

And on your last statement, Baltimore coverage shows that's absolutely not the case.

Asians are subject to both physical and psychological violence in America; statistics show Asians are more likely to suffer bullying growing up than any other race, and commit suicide at higher rates than any other race. While Asians are high achievers and high earners, there's a well documented glass ceiling that prevents us from climbing the ranks of corporate leadership beyond middle management. And of course, there's the whole college admissions thing.

Oddly enough, the numbers don't bear that out. They've been brought up in news articles, but the data we can see doesn't back it up.

From the APA:

Myth: Asian-American students are bullied far more than other ethnic groups, with 54 percent of Asian-American students reporting that they were bullied in the classroom.

Fact: Fewer Asian-American students (17 percent) reported being bullied at school than did any other ethnic groups. The 54 percent figure refers to where the bullying occurred, not the overall rate. Over half of Asian-American students who report being bullied, say it occurring in the classroom.

Myth: Asian-American students are cyberbullied far more than any other ethnic group, with 62 percent of Asian-American students reporting that they were bullied online up to twice a month.

Fact: Fewer Asian-American students (2.9 percent) reported being cyberbullied than did any other ethnic group. The 62 percent figure refers to how frequently the cyberbullying occurred among those reported being cyber-bullied, not the overall rate.

And on suicide:

Myth: Asian-Americans have higher suicide rates than other racial/ethnic groups.

Fact: The suicide rate for Asian-Americans (6.10 per 10,000) is about half that of the national rate (11.5 per 10,000).

Myth: Asian-Americans have higher suicide rates than other racial/ethnic groups.

Fact: Asian-American college students had a higher rate of suicidal thoughts than White college students but there is no national data about their rate of suicide deaths.

Myth: Young Asian-American women (aged 15-24) have the highest suicide rates of all racial/ethnic groups.

Fact: American-Indian/Alaskan Native women aged 15-24 have the highest suicide rate compared to all racial/ethnic groups.

Suicide thoughts and attempts are higher in Asian-American college students than in White students. A larger problem with Asian-Americans and suicide is they're less likely to seek help for their thoughts and feelings.

Which is not to say there aren't problems facing Asian-Americans, merely that those statistics are incorrect.

 

[Valhelm]

Something about that sentence I don't like.

It suggests that hard work alone is why Asian Americans are the most academically successful, which I agree is really suspect. External pressures play a huge role, and are more important than "hard work" if you consider parental encouragement to be an external pressure.

I've seen statistics that the average Black parent is much more flexible with the grades their children are allowed to achieve than the average Asian parent. In addition, having more income and being statistically more likely to live in a two-parent home make a huge difference.

Also, HisImperialMajesty, the media points you brought up are incredibly important and need to be fixed, especially the reluctance in Hollywood to portray masculine Asian men. And I'm sorry that you've experienced such frequent casual racism. I didn't realize that was so acceptable.

 

[MHWilliams]

This is why Affirmative Action is so controversial in Asian American communities.

Race cannot be ignored, though. Here's an article, from the NY Times that is pretty damning: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota

From that article:

This decline might seem small. But these same years brought a huge increase in America’s college-age Asian population, which roughly doubled between 1992 and 2011, while non-Hispanic white numbers remained almost unchanged. Thus, according to official statistics, the percentage of Asian-Americans enrolled at Harvard fell by more than 50 percent over the last two decades, while the percentage of whites changed little. This decline in relative Asian-American enrollment was actually larger than the impact of Harvard’s 1925 Jewish quota, which reduced Jewish freshmen from 27.6 percent to 15 percent.

The percentages of college-age Asian-Americans enrolled at most of the other Ivy League schools also fell during this same period, and over the last few years Asian enrollments across these different universities have converged to a very similar level and remained static over time. This raises suspicions of a joint Ivy League policy to restrict Asian-American numbers to a particular percentage.

K, so we've established a problem. Next article.

Some allege specifically that affirmative action harms Asian applicants, capping the Asian population at elite universities. In reality, there is no evidence that this is the case. Furthermore, if discrimination against Asian applicants were proven to exist at elite universities, getting rid of affirmative action would do nothing to stop it.

It has long been illegal for universities to impose quotas or ceilings on enrollment of any racial group. Affirmative action, as it currently exists in the United States, simply allows admissions officers to consider an applicant’s racial background in a limited way as one of a myriad of factors that make up who he or she is. It neither condones nor facilitates racial discrimination and quotas.

Far from harming Asian-Americans, the consideration of diversity in admissions advances equal opportunity for many Asian-American applicants who continue to face educational barriers. Southeast Asians like Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, most of whom came to the U.S. as refugees, have significantly lower educational attainment and higher poverty rates than many other Asian and non-Asian ethnic groups. Without the consideration of diversity, many of these students would be denied an equal opportunity for higher education.

And the next one?

Because I was one of the few Ivy League admissions officers of Asian descent, I was usually challenged, publicly and privately, about how affirmative action admissions practices were unfair to qualified applicants. Yes, if you considered only test scores, Asian and Asian-American students would seem to be at a disadvantage.

From my experience of watching college students learn, grow and develop on elite campuses, I rarely found the skills that are validated by standardized tests to be those that enhance classroom discussions or the interpersonal dynamic when doing research with peers and professors.

Asian and Asian-American students should embrace affirmative action because it allows you to present yourself as a complete person instead of reducing yourself to a test score. More important, a campus community composed only of students who have aced standardized tests cannot match the dynamic, diverse ethos that currently exists. I’m sure that many students, particularly Asian and Asian-Americans, would not find Ivy League schools as desirable if their campus communities only valued competitive, high-stakes testing where only a few are given the opportunity to succeed.

I'd say the bolded is a huge problem that needs correcting. Admissions officers should also be representative of their student body.

Next article again sets up that there is a problem, but neglects to seek the reason behind it.

The Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade wrote in his 2009 book, "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life,'' that “to receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600)." As Ron Unz demonstrates, the percentage of Asians among the student bodies of Ivy League schools has been a steady 17 percent, give or take a couple of points, for about 20 years.

Skipping the words of the person fro Harvard, because frankly it's marketing fluff. The last article:

The widely documented disadvantage that Asian-Americans face in college admissions is in some significant measure a result of a broader type of discrimination based on legacy status. Highly selective colleges provide a significant preference in admissions to the children of alumni – a practice that advantages the already advantaged. And among the losers, along with African-American and Latino students, are Asian-American applicants.

In 1990, when Harvard University was investigated for discriminating against Asian-American applicants, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that part of the reason Asian-American students fared less well than similarly qualified white applicants was that they were less likely to be legacies. For the fall 2003 class, 91 percent of legacy applicants accepted by early decision at the University of Virginia were white, compared with just 1.6 percent who were Asian, according to journalist Daniel Golden.

And legacy preferences are likely to perpetuate harm against Asian-Americans in the future. Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford find in their study of selective colleges that Asian-Americans must score 140 points higher on average than whites on the math and verbal portions of the SAT in order to have the same chances of admission. In the next generation, legacy preferences will essentially freeze in place the unfair advantage white applicants enjoy over Asian applicants by giving the children of today’s white college students a leg up in admissions.

African-Americans and Latinos are hurt by legacy preferences for a different set of reasons than Asian-Americans: even with affirmative action programs, black and Hispanic students are grossly underrepresented at selective colleges today. They will, therefore, be grossly underrepresented among the children of alumni in the next generation. But for varying reasons, black, Latino and Asian-Americans all have an interest in abolishing legacy preferences.

From an article you point to as damning, it's pointed out that there's a problem, but not one that's the result of quotas. Instead, Ivy League admission preferring the children of alumni and big donors shuts out minorities from the process.

So again, why the focus on AA?

 

[not psycho]

I don't think Simpson's Paradox is at play here. You don't usually choose a major or field of study during the college application process, with the exception of a few schools.

Harvard seems to be one of them:

https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics

They list intended field of concentration among the admission statistics. And even when schools don't ask for it, students can volunteer the information in an essay.

Simpson's Paradox could also affect things like the med school numbers posted earlier, which don't give info on individual schools.

Legacies could definitely be a big factor, I agree.

That's a big part of it for sure. Pure cash might also factor in. Maybe not at Harvard, which has plenty of money, but other schools could have a hard time passing up a rich candidate for a financial aid candidate.

That would agree with the study that said poor Whites, with equivalent scores, were the least likely to be accepted. Among Whites, maybe it is all about the money and legacy. And maybe that has now transferred to Asians (lots of maybes here, but we don't have the full data).

Race cannot be ignored, though. Here's an article, from the NY Times that is pretty damning: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...statistics-indicate-an-ivy-league-asian-quota

This is a misleading picture. I left it big because the lines are confusing but essential to the meaning.

The percentage of college age Americans who are Asian rose from about 3% to 5% over this time span. Based on that we would naively expect a 66% increase in enrollment percentage.

Consider Princeton in this graph. Apparently they went from about 10% to about 18%. An 80% increase, greater than the increase in the Asian population. In other words, the "true" slope of the Princeton line is greater than the "true" slope of the increase in Asian population: Princeton's Asian enrollment is growing faster than the Asian population. The fact that the slope of the Asian population is drawn steeper here is entirely based on the chosen units.

Now consider Harvard. It looks like they went from about 11% in 1990 to 17.5% in 2011 (they're actually at 20% now). 17.5 divided by 11 = 1.6, which is almost exactly the same as the increase in the Asian population. From 1990 to today, it appears even Harvard's Asian enrollment has grown faster, not slower, than the Asian population.

The key point is that the slopes in the picture do not reflect the true slopes. The fact that the dotted line is "higher" and "steeper" is meaningless. Its actual slope is lower than some of the other lines, and it uses different units so being "higher" is silly.

I could draw the same graph with the dotted line being below all the other lines, and almost completely flat, and it would be using the exact same data.



Having said that, Harvard really needs to release their enrollment statistics. We don't have the data to decide, but that's because they refuse to release it.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Really is a lesson in how flimsy this world is and how much everyone is about theirs. Everyone believes the race starts wherever the started running and believe the race ends when they've crossed the finish line. That sort of thinking isn't going to fix this country.

If we are talking about historical context, Asians in America have been discriminated against heavily too, From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Japanese Internment to even property ownership laws that still technically exist but aren't followed in states like Florida, to say nothing of the way Middle Easterners are viewed in this country today. And with all of this, they rarely if ever get to benefit from these programs regardless of their own personal socio-economic background, I can at least be sympathetic to their claim, why should they have to work harder than whites or blacks when it comes to college admissions?

 

[Cagey]

The graph isn't misleading at all. The key line in that graph is CalTech. Their enrollment of Asians has skyrocketed as the Asian population has increased while the Ivies have not. CalTech famously goes by scores and the Ivies cling to their holistic nonsense. The Ivies have increased their Asian enrollment outpacing population growth but what does that prove? Such statements don't get to the qualifications of each group.

CalTech demonstrates that enrollment should have grown significantly more than the Ivies careful cultivation of their precious, idyllic, kaleidoscopic college experience of a student body allowed for.

I ridicule this because the primary benefits I derived from the exposure and experience to different people from the carefully cultivated class I graduated from, including participation on my school's black law journal, was interacting with people of all races nationalities and creeds... from far higher income strata than my family. A superficially diverse experience that, in practice, was largely the same! I needed the exposure to the wealthier class all the same.

Secondary was actually the maligned "distant state" students. The differing states or countries of the people made it more interesting than black daughter of wealthy lawyers versus white son of wealthy lawyers.

 

[Liquidus Snake]

Ivy leagues hardly have chinks in their armor in this aspect. They have the right to be picky because of the high volume of applicant they get.

 

[not psycho]

The graph isn't misleading at all. The key line in that graph is CalTech.

You just proved how misleading it is.

How much does CalTech increase? 22 to 39? So a 77% increase?

Princeton increased faster than CalTech. So did Dartmouth.

For that matter, Harvard was at 11% in 1990 and now sits at 20%. An 82% increase, which appears to be more than CalTech.

Remember the percentage of college age Americans who are Asian only grew by about 66% over this time frame. From about 3% to 5%.

 

[Cagey]

You just proved how misleading it is.

How much does CalTech increase? 22 to 39? So a 77% increase?

Princeton increased faster than CalTech. So did Dartmouth.

For that matter, Harvard was at 11% in 1990 and now sits at 20%. An 82% increase, which appears to be more than CalTech.

Remember the percentage of college age Americans who are Asian only grew by about 66% over this time frame.

Seriously? The base numbers being half and enrollment having curiously stopped climbing aren't relevant or problematic at all, huh. You're hung up on the wrong things

Edit - to be clear, the wrong thing is rate of increase, as if it's somehow laudable to have had such pitiful enrollment rates to begin.

 

[Marauder Shields]

I guess racism is fine when it works for you.

 

[Infinite]

I guess racism is fine when it works for you.

This post added nothing to the discussion. Who are you even talking to?

 

[Ke0]

I guess racism is fine when it works for you.

Seems to be how most white Americans rationalize it. Works for them.

...It works for us in the UK too though.

 

[not psycho]

Seriously? The base numbers being half and enrollment having curiously stopped climbing aren't relevant or problematic at all, huh.

So you're saying that CalTech in 1990, a school and year chosen at random, are the proper baseline for every school, forever?

I won't even get into the ways CalTech is not a great point of comparison for all schools. Your idea is ridiculous on its face. No school and year, chosen at random, should suddenly be considered the baseline for all schools, everywhere, forever.


Harvard desperately needs to release its enrollment statistics. Then we can get to the bottom of this. But I will maintain that the graph is misleading, and that it makes no sense for a random school and year to be an all time baseline.

 

[Cagey]

So you're saying that CalTech in 1990, a school and year chosen at random, are the proper baseline for every school, forever?

I won't even get into the ways CalTech is not a great point of comparison for all schools. Your idea is ridiculous on its face. No school and year, chosen at random, should suddenly be considered the baseline for all schools, everywhere, forever.


Harvard desperately needs to release its enrollment statistics. Then we can get to the bottom of this. But I will maintain that the graph is misleading, and that it makes no sense for a random school and year to be an all time baseline.

I didn't make or imply any of the claims you state that I did.

 

[Trojita]

There is a shit load of people that apply to Harvard.

Applicants
34,295

Admitted
2,048

Matriculates
1,662

Admitted from the waiting list
30

Now I'm not sure why they have a huge difference in admitted to matriculates, for those that don't know what that means basically 2048 got letters of admittion but only 1662 went to the school with only 30 from a waiting list.

Now the demographics records are pretty interesting and surprising

African American
12%

Asian American
20%

Hispanic or Latino
13%

Native American or Pacific Islander
2%

12 percent of African Americans is lower than the actual percentage of the African American population percentage in relation to the United States, but its actually a fairly low drop than the actual African American population percentage which is 12.6. 12% is a great number especially when considering socio-economic and systematic disadvantages this group has to go through. Some day hopefully it will match the representation of the population completely, it isn't far off.

Now the Asian American rate is very interesting. The rate of admittance as you see is 20%, that is in comparison to the Asian-American population percentage which is 4.5%. Asian Americans are overrepresented 4x over their population percentage in relation to the rest of the demographics of America. That is huge.

Now if we take those percentages we have 53% left for groups not covered. We don't know how many Middle Easterners go to the school based on this information and they may be considered white. Also the census puts Northern African ethnic people into the White category for population statistics. The number of European ethnic people may be lower. Even if we take the 53%, the population of whites in America (Including White Hispanics) is 77.7% with the percentage of Non-Hispanic whites being 62.6%. According to the data, Whites are slightly underrepresented in Harvard admittance.

Now whether there is a quota or limitation in the admittance of Asian-Americans, we don't know. An investigation into practices at the school would have to be looked into. Harvard Admittance is a mix of grades, SAT Scores, Interviews, recommendations, and extra curricular activities. A student can be very strong in one area, but poor in another area.

I guess I should add before I finish that Native/Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native admittance is higher than the population percentage, but the numbers are very low to begin with. That group put together only holds a population percentage in the United States of 1.12%. Their 2% admittance rate is almost twice as large.

 

[boiled goose]

That's all well and good but it imposes a racially derived disadvantage these kids can't do anything about. It has nothing to do with Asian parents fixating on "numbers."

Black kids have plenty of disadvantagEs.

Asians being unfavored compared to white students might be iffy. But Admissions are trying to measure potential not just past success

Affirmative action based just on income is not enough. Skin color matters .

 

[EatinOlives]

I guess racism is fine when it works for you.

Well, it was five pages before people started trotting out the "reverse racism!!!" arguments, I guess that's progress.

 

[ponpo]

Does the "marks aren't everything" reasoning work for all fields?

For example, do people care if their medical doctors had a more diverse learning environment than higher MCAT scores or whatever?

 

[EatinOlives]

Does the "marks aren't everything" reasoning work for all fields?

For example, do people care if their medical doctors had a more diverse learning environment than higher MCAT scores or whatever?

You're asking if working fields are meritocracies.

The answer is no, barely any of them are.

 

[FortuneFaded]

A white kid born to two crack head parents is going to have an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two crack head parents. And most likely an easier time succeeding than a black kid born to two sober parents that are almost as poor as those crack heads.

No.

 

[boiled goose]

Does the "marks aren't everything" reasoning work for all fields?

For example, do people care if their medical doctors had a more diverse learning environment than higher MCAT scores or whatever?

Mcat scores are probably not good predictors of who will be a good doctor.

But thanks for the shallow attempt.

 

[ponpo]

You're asking if working fields are meritocracies.

The answer is no, barely any of them are.

Not asking if they are, more like if people think it's more valid that they would be depending on the field.

Mcat scores are probably not good predictors of who will be a good doctor.

But thanks for the shallow attempt.

Is race a more accurate predicator of who will be a good doctor?

 

[boiled goose]

Not asking if they are, more like if people think it's more valid that they would be depending on the field.



Is race a more accurate predicator of who will be a good doctor?

I said it was? You have to assess potential. Which is hard. Best you can do is look at a person holistically. Race is a part of that.

Dishonest arguing and fear mongering. This should be fun.