"Diversity" in schools =Racism?

Truth Hurts wrote:

"Black students admitted to universities above their skill level often do poorly and fail to graduate in high numbers."

And were students slotted appropriately, they would have a better chance of success through fitting in better academically; further, the offspring of successful graduates have a better chance of upgrading their future academic institutions; whereas the offspring of dropouts continue the cycle of frustration...

Harvard, too, discriminates against Asians (in my opinion), given that the admissions committee makes joking reference to the "Wall of Wang," and get tired of "yet another 4.0 captain of the chess team." (Conversely, in 1996, Yale's acceptance rate for applicants from PR topped 33%.) Typically, this discrimination occurs by forcing CERTAIN groups to compete in their own pool (i.e., a de facto quota system).

The pool gets even murkier when top schools, often for financial reasons, open their doors to a greater percentage of foreign students (i.e., increasing the opportunity set generally ups your applicant pool at the expense of your domestic students).

In the new case brought by Li -- which I doubt he will win -- he ain't nothin' special. The days of a 4.0 and perfect SATs along with your obligatory "community service" getting you into a top school are loooOOOOooong gone. If you are not doing original research OR at the top of some endeavor OR a sports phenom (in addition to top grades, etc.), well, welcome to the lottery.

As for racism -- sure, it's there, but I have better things to do with my time than worry about it. Go ahead, throw whatever artificial, superficial barrier you want at me and mine, in the long run it all comes out in the wash.

Come on man!

The PC machine was designed for the sole purpose of sticking it to the rich, white boogie-man...

...it didn't consider the possibility of impacting inter-minority relations: that would have required too much vision and thinking.

The future, multi-racial culture will be flogging the dead horse of white supremacy long after the caucasian race has died off.

I don't like asians. I'm glad to see 'em get screwed.

No, it is due to one group of liberals having some sense of entitlement. One that makes them believe they should tell us ALL what THEY want us to do.

Case in point: the JR. ROTC program in San Francisco's schools.

23 months until the next election. All will be made whole again.

Is it true? wrote:

...[D]iversity isn't so much about helping the underprivileged, it's about providing a rich educational experience for everyone.

Sooo....nix on the women's colleges, discriminatory bastions that they are.

Wellesley -- Integrate Now (WIN!)

And, you know, Shakespeare couldn't have written his plays without the rich racial diversity that characterized London in the late 16th century...

And how 'bout that bible?

And what is a basketball team without the successful mix of Asians and Native Americans?

A funny thing about recruitment of African Americans at the collegiate level is that colleges seek to mimic the racial make-up of "society" (so, target 12%, say), even though the pool of APPLICANTS is skewed (maybe 6% African American)... Anyone care to theorize how those figures get reconciled?

But the FUNNIEST thing is viewing the overall trajectory of the truly "privileged." At my prestigious firm we have active support and recruitment of minorities through internships, college scholarships, outreach, and employment. In reviewing these ppl's resumes, I was astounded:

Home addresses had zip codes akin to 90210

High schools were along the lines of Ivy League Academy, 'Spensive Country Day, and Holy Exclusionary Prep.

Colleges were Columbia, etc.

These children were on a ROCKET SHIP, and would have succeeded REGARDLESS of any special attention or program (indeed, I would not be surprised if, like Clarence Thomas, they resented the niggling suspicion that others looked down on them as "not quite good enough" because they had not been allowed to succeed on their OWN merits). The REAL tragedy is that treasure is bestowed on a tiny minority of upper achievers while those REALLY in need (and this is a class thing not a race thing) are pretty much ignored.

But, hey, the important thing is the stats, right?

In logic, what you've done by questioning the argument based on your dislike for its author (or in this case, his mother) is called the ad hominem fallacy--attacking the person instead of the argument itself.

It doesn't work. If even Hitler says 2+2=4, the evil of the speaker doesn't change the truth of the proposition a bit.

You may not like Asians but...

The presence of "Asians" in American society (East Asians as well as East Indians)as naturalized citizens, native born Americans or permanent residents is not reflective of some naive American Ideal of the "America as the melting pot.: Fact is that these populations, although small in percentage (between 3-5 percent) maintain the economic and scientifc well being and dominance of the United States. A visit to any institution in biotech, nanotech, high tech, defense etc..will reveal this. Statistically, non-Asians are either uninterested, incapable or unmotivated to pursue these fields..In addition, Whites also benefit from affirmative action but it is at the expense of Asians.

Neuropsychiatrist wrote:

In addition, Whites also benefit from affirmative action but it is at the expense of Asians.

I don't think you fully read the article posted.

Is it true? wrote:

Li points to a study conducted by two Princeton academics last year that concluded if you got rid of racial preferences in higher education, the number of whites admitted to schools would remain fairly constant. However, without racial preferences, Asians would take roughly 80 percent of the positions now allotted to Hispanic and black students. In other words, there is a quota--though none dare call it that--keeping Asians out of elite schools in numbers disproportionate to their merit.

and another word for "black people" is african american, or n-word, so why you post a dead topic?

I'm not sure this whole thread is appropriate for this board, and I suspect it will be deleted soon. May I suggest

www.xoxohth.com?

They're much more welcoming of ranters.

Anyway, the "hard fact" to which my moniker refers is the fact that, on average, American blacks have an average IQ of about 85, while Americans of East Asian extraction have an average IQ somewhat above 100.

This link is fairly good for exploring the consequences of the disparity:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm

It's a pretty lengthy article, but if you just look at figures 3-6 and read their captions, you'll get the gist.

What does the test for IQ really measure though? Who made the test, what are the implications of that?

The fact of the matter is that getting a 1,600 doesn't automatically get you into an Ivy League school and it shouldn't. If you are a wealthy upper middle-class kid you have plenty of opportunities available to you, such as kaplan test, which are going to bring up your SAT score. If you're a poor kid, the same kind of factors are working against you.

Diversity should not mean quotas though. Diversity should mean taking the best of every environment, not the best of the best... Taking students who have excelled in their diverse environment, who rose to the top in something other than a New England prep school. If SAT scores, good grades, and community service were all you needed to get into a college, the Ivys would be full of kids from Exeter, Andover, and Deerfield.

In this country we need to redefine our ideas and standards of success. If you're a middle of the road kid at a prep school with a 1450 on your SATS you're not going to get into an Ivy League school anymore, and thank god for that.

And as for Affirmative Action, let's say that Affirmative Action works against a white person in the admissions process of college. Instead of complaining, maybe that white person should try and think about everything advantage that they've had along the way. That they've grown up in a culture where success and college are the standards that they've been told to strive for every year of their life. THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA.

I actually have read the article in question. It states 80 percent of the slots..what about the 20 percent missing? These slots would undoubtedly have gone to White students....conclusion: Whites benefit from the current admssion policies..call it affirmative action for blacks, hispanics AND whites..or negative action against Asians.....six or half a dozen is the same...

article in question

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/78Q19/index.xml?section=newsreleases

on another note William Kidder wrote an article on a study disputing the conclusions of the above article. It makes as much sense as teh one above. He distinguishes bewteen affirmative action and negative action as different independent policies. He argues that if affirmative action (favoring Blacks and Hispanics) is eliminated and negative action is kept (discriminating against Asians)..the slots that should have gone to Asians would go to whites based on the statistical fact that Whites are the largestpercentage of applicants and admission anyway due to their larger numbers.

regardless of which study you believe....Whites are not affected by affirmative action..they either benefit from it at the expense of Asians or are not affected by it all...

my conclusion has always been the only groups of people who have the right to criticize Affirmative action are Asians and Jews.

When will you all learn:

Admissions officers in top-notch schools do not simply make decisions based on who is the smartest. They pick the students that will best influence the dynamic of the student body.

If admissions officers only chose students with 4.0s and 1600s, it would make for a very boring, lifeless community of students. Take it further, if they only chose students that are white, or only students from the Northeast, or only students that excel at math, or only students from LA, the class would be limited to the same cultural backgrounds and the same insights. The same ideas and the same discourse would carry on outside of the classroom, and students would leave the university with a very limited perspective.

By exposing students to people of different races, geographic backgrounds, talents, religions, etc. etc., students have the opportunity to experience people with different ideas to grow and learn from them. Learning occurs both inside and outside the classroom. There is a benefit in diversity you all seem to overlook. Yes, there is that deadweight loss from potentially under-qualified minority students, but the diversity they bring outweighs this loss.

Bullshit! Go sit in a calc or chemistry 101 class with a class full of "diversity flava" - 'lectrons don't give a crap about diversity, same goes for "the stone".

Neuropsychiatrist wrote:

I actually have read the article in question. It states 80 percent of the slots..what about the 20 percent missing? These slots would undoubtedly have gone to White students.....

No genius, the other 20% would stay with blacks and hispanics. Nothing is "missing." I would be glad to refute some of your other assertions but it would just be a waste of time I'm sure, given your apparent comprehension skills.

Well, I just read your posts on another thread, I take it back you seem pretty bright. (You did overlook that detail above though, I tend to pounce on those things.) But I disagree with some of the things you've said. I think one thing to consider is that recent overseas immigrants to the US (not Mexico, Canada) tend to excel in academics. This is because in many countries (Asian and African especially), it is mainly the social/intellectual upper class who have the resources to come to America (and take "intellectual jobs"). Obviously their kids and grandkids will have those favorable genes and have instilled similar work ethics.

No genius...you have not read teh article and it is pointless to argue worthy points with someonelike yourself...see below

"Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent."

note that it states "admitted class" and "not taken by African -American students and hispanic students"

You didn't read my post.

Students learn both inside and OUTSIDE the classroom. Thus, your argument that in these advanced math- or science-based courses does not refute anything I said. There may be a lot more Asian-Americans and less African-Americans in these courses, but this is not to say that they do not contribute significantly to the campus culture outside of the classroom.

I hadn't read the article beyond the first paragraph which stated, "Princeton University researchers have found that ignoring race in elite college admissions would result in sharp declines in the numbers of African Americans and Hispanics accepted with little gain for white students."

If you'll note how it was misquoted above, the word used was "allotted to," not "not taken by," which changes the interpretation. The wording of the article is still a bit hazy, but seems to imply that 4/5 of the "affirmative action" spots allotted to blacks/hispanics beyond those that would receive their place based on merit are going to Asians, and the other 1/5 would go to other ethnic groups (presumably whites, hence the .5 percentage increase in makeup).