Law Affirmative Action Abolished: U.S Supreme Court Outlaws Racial Discrimination In College Admissions.

Asians vote majority democrat.

This is what they voted for.

I know this. Most Asians still support Affirmative action - despite the fact that it hurts them. I'm Korean-American.

I support what AA's goals are -just not how it is applied. It's trying to solve a problem that needs to be addressed. However, it is a flawed solution but there is no better alternative at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I know this. Most Asians still support Affirmative action - despite the fact that it hurts them. I'm Korean-American.

I support AA myself - because there is no better alternative at the moment. It's trying to solve a problem that needs to be addressed.

sheeit.. i don't know any asians that are in favor of AA
 
You're analysis is flawed yourself because you are making the (false) assumption that the Asian students' extracurriculars are different. You are making the assumption that all the Asians students have are instruments. You're basically being biased - "oh the Asian student? He must be a math geek that plays violin or cello."

But I saw some of the Asians students extras and not all of them fit that mold.

Actually, I didn't say anything about the Asian kids specific extracurriculars. You commented that Asian kids have extracurriculars too - with the implication that I had said the Asian didn't have ANY extracurriculars. That wasn't what I said so I explained it in greater detail. Part of how you end up with lower academic scores in students is because they have unusual or rare extracurriculars and that raises their value. Harvard still has to field a football team, basketball team, soccer team, gymnastics squad, golf team, tennis squad, track and field group, theater interests, alongside the math, chess, computer, robotics, etc. clubs. So, pointing to things are relevant to the 2nd group, like SAT scores, is problematic if someone is ignoring the school's needs for the 1st group.

I used instruments as an example of an extracurricular, not as a fact about Asian specific extracurriculars. Lots of people play instruments - they don't all play the same instrument. I, for example, played piano and when I got to college I was surprised how many other kids had also played piano - it wasn't as unique or interesting as I'd thought it would be. My niece plays the violin - another over done instrument. We're not Asian. Would you have felt better if I'd used the tambourine and maracas?

Of course, you should probably question why you're making these raced based categorizations instead of nitpicking the instruments in a general example? Moving on.

These are liberal arts colleges, not technical ones. They are not interested in providing purely the best math/science scoring outcomes - they are interested in providing a fully rounded liberal arts education to kids who have interests in that broad range of liberal arts interests. Put another way, they need students interested in majoring in English, theater, philosophy, art history and such. People cannot ignore those needs and limit the conversation to SAT scores because SAT scores are just a part of what schools are looking for.
 
My 2cents countries should prize minorities that integrate better
 
I know this. Most Asians still support Affirmative action - despite the fact that it hurts them. I'm Korean-American.

I support AA myself - because there is no better alternative at the moment. It's trying to solve a problem that needs to be addressed.

If most Asians are happy being discriminated against, then why do we have this thread? What's the problem?
 
I've always been in that goofy spot with a full blown Japanese mother but Eastern European mix for a dad.

His Romanian and Czech grandparents were over 6 feet so I was 6'3" and over 300lbs going into high school and everyone thought I was Mexican, Native, or an Islander so I get it.

IN Hawaii people assume I am Hawaiian because I am a pretty big guy and half asian. In the mainland it is a mixed bag
 
If most Asians are happy being discriminated against, then why do we have this thread? What's the problem?

Because AA is trying to solve something that should be addressed. But the current system is discriminatory and simply unfair.
 
Actually, I didn't say anything about the Asian kids specific extracurriculars. You commented that Asian kids have extracurriculars too - with the implication that I had said the Asian didn't have ANY extracurriculars. That wasn't what I said so I explained it in greater detail. Part of how you end up with lower academic scores in students is because they have unusual or rare extracurriculars and that raises their value. Harvard still has to field a football team, basketball team, soccer team, gymnastics squad, golf team, tennis squad, track and field group, theater interests, alongside the math, chess, computer, robotics, etc. clubs. So, pointing to things are relevant to the 2nd group, like SAT scores, is problematic if someone is ignoring the school's needs for the 1st group..

You're changing the goalposts of your argument now.

Your analysis is flawed because you're weighing all extracurriculars as equally attractive. As I've said in other posts - if you have 10 kids with the piano on their application then the 4-10th people are less attractive because you already have stronger representatives at that instrument. Whereas if you have another 4 applicants with the drum, you might take slightly less academically qualified students with drums because you want piano and drum, not just all piano..

You making the implication that all the Asian students have the same extracurriculars and these Ivy Leagues value different ones. And basically implying Asians aren't getting in, not because of discrimination - but because the schools weigh various extracurriculars differently.

Well my point is - a lot of these Asian students have a varying range of extracurriculars - not just the stereotypical classical instrument - yet STILL have to score higher than the other racial groups with ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

That is discrimination based on race. Because that is the only other factor that is considered.

It's not like Harvard is passing on a 1550 SAT to admit a 900. They're passing on a 1550 to admit a 1250 or 1300. Well, that 1250/1300 student is still plenty smart and will still represent the Harvard name very well in the post-collegiate world. (don't kill me because I'm not using the 2400 scale)

And the thing that gets disregarded, imo, is the really elite brains aren't getting passed over by anyone. It's the pretty good but not quite OMG-level brains that are having this problem.

I scored a 1340 and I don't consider myself an "elite brain." There is a big difference from someone who scores 1550 to 1300. I personally know people from my HS who scored 1500 and above. They worked much harder than me.
 
Last edited:
Because AA is trying to solve something that should be addressed. But the current system is discriminatory and simply unfair.

Ok, and herein lies the problem with your reasoning.

AA by its very nature IS discrimination based on race.

You support a system that is discriminatory to its core and then complain that it's discriminatory.

If you don't like AA, why don't you have the balls to just admit it?
 
Ok, and herein lies the problem with your reasoning.

AA by its very nature IS discrimination based on race.

You support a system that is discriminatory to its core and then complain that it's discriminatory.

If you don't like AA, why don't you have the balls to just admit it?

Fuck are you talking about? I just said AA is discriminatory and unfair. Learn how to read.

And as previously stated, most Asians still support Affirmative Action despite it hurting them.

I think AA is trying to address a legitimate social need - helping those that are disadvantaged. So we should come up with some different way of helping - perhaps free prep classes for disadvantaged kids during summers, etc.
 
Being black is weighted much higher than being a white woman in admissions. You know this.

White hispanics? LOL.

whiteor.jpg


tumblr_mucoe8zddc1sr92d8o2_500.jpg





These guys need to check their white male privilege!!!

Belive it or not, there are white hispanics--ever heard of Canelo? The list could go on.

Also, you're as ignorant as to assume a name such as Safraz KHAN to be Hispanic. He's obviously of middle eastern descent, most likely Pakistani.
 
Fuck are you talking about? I just said AA is discriminatory and unfair. Learn how to read.

And as previously stated, most Asians still support Affirmative Action despite it hurting them.

I think AA is trying to address a legitimate social need - helping those that are disadvantaged. So we should come up with some different way of helping - perhaps free prep classes for disadvantaged kids during summers, etc.

Let me spell out your logic for you:

AA is discriminatory and unfair.

I support AA.

But, AA is discriminatory and unfair.

But, I support AA.

Why don't you call AA for what it is and not support it? Or are you afraid of being called racist?
 
Let me spell out your logic for you:

AA is discriminatory and unfair.

I support AA.

But, AA is discriminatory and unfair.

But, I support AA.

Why don't you call AA for what it is and not support it? Or are you afraid of being called racist?

I didn't say I supported AA. I said most Asians still support it. Again - learn how to read.

And I'm Asian retard. You're saying I'm racist against myself?
 
Last edited:
I didn't say I supported AA. I said most Asians still support it. Again - learn how to read.

And I'm Asian retard. You're saying I'm racist against myself?

You were justifying its existence by claims by it was doing something virtuous.

So you are against AA?
 
You were justifying its existence by claims by it was doing something virtuous.

So you are against AA?

How many times do I have to type out the same thing? I think AA is discriminatory and unfair as it is presently utilized.

However, it is trying to address a legitimate social need. So we should think of alternatives.

Learn to read and stop bothering me.
 
I was reading something about educating the elite and I think it's relevant to this discussion.

The foundation:
It’s important to remember for a moment Stevens’ (2007) and Karabel’s (2006) work for a moment. While it often surprises parents who are working incredibly hard to get their kids to work incredibly hard at their schoolwork, most top colleges are not structured to take the best academic achievers. They want students who meet a minimum threshold, but are also “interesting,” displaying the varied kinds of characters that such schools are looking for to
make up their classes. Elite high schools are thus not willing to just rely upon these negotiations and hope for the best. They are also structured to make sure their students are as likely as possible to get into the top colleges in the nation. They do this by working hard to develop in them an “interesting character.”

Now the relevant question:
Yale’s worries about getting students who are anything but the best turn into real pressures on both students and elite high schools. How, then, do these schools make most of their class in the top 5 percent? How do they get so many kids into our nation’s top colleges when these all colleges only want those at the top? There seems to be an impossible math going on here. Most elite colleges only want students at the top of their high school classes, but elite boarding schools seem to get almost all of their students into elite colleges. How is it that the bottom 50 percent of these high school classes are still getting into outstanding colleges?

And the insightful answer:

The seemingly impossible math suddenly becomes possible when we realize that there are lots of five percents. We typically think of the top of a class as being an academic category: who has the highest grades. But we should recall, if only quickly, Karabel’s work on the triumph of “character” and the decline of academic standards as the standard for admission. Grades now create a baseline, a minimum that a student must have to be considered for acceptance to a top college. But they are not all that matters. In fact, they are a small part of it. Beyond grades, there are other dimensions on which to compete. And if we quickly recall the work of Mitchell Stevens, we will know that it is most often these dimensions upon which college admissions officers accept applicants.

There are sports, arts, community activism, quirky interests or activities, and extreme wealth – a whole host of arenas for success. If you can get almost all of your students above a basic bar – high enough grades and board scores – and then create lots of different arenas in high school life for them to do well, then suddenly you have lots of “best” students.


Almost all of your graduating class will be in the top five percent. You have made the impossible possible.

It's illustrative of just how uninformed most of us are about what drives these admissions decisions. While people are focusing on the academic standards, the elite colleges are looking for a baseline of academics and then elite performance in other ventures.

I'm going to add an entire separate post about how the college counselors at high schools actually shape which kids are getting accepted and rejected from the elite colleges based on criteria that we're not actively talking about.

Probably the biggest take away I've gotten from my recent reading is the extent to which elite high schools play a larger role in shaping who eventually rises to positions of wealth and power within this nation. While people are discussing getting into elite colleges re: future outcomes, the prep schools are wielding outsized influence on those outcomes.

For example - 90% of high school kids attend public schools, yet 40% of elite college attendees come from private schools. 10% of the high school community is providing 4x the representation at elite colleges. Moreover, some of these prep schools are sending 25%+ of their students to those schools. Yet these kids are not outperforming the public school kids at the collegiate level (they do eventually make more money than them though).

Anyway, the whole thing is fascinating and more and more supportive of the idea that while Asian Americans might not be getting into elite colleges at a rate commensurate with their academic output - it's probably not because of discrimination against them or Affirmative Action. It's because academic output isn't as valuable in the admissions decisions as college applicants are led to believe
 
Anyway, the whole thing is fascinating and more and more supportive of the idea that while Asian Americans might not be getting into elite colleges at a rate commensurate with their academic output - it's probably not because of discrimination against them or Affirmative Action. It's because academic output isn't as valuable in the admissions decisions as college applicants are led to believe

This is the same exact vague reasoning used against Jews when they started disproportionately getting into Ivy Leagues back in the earlier part of the century.

Before the Jews, it was all about academic performance. But when they started replacing the WASPS, all of a sudden they started taking a more "holistic" approach to admissions.

It's a bullshit excuse.

It seems you are "choosing" to believe the university's story because you WANT to believe it. Instead of objectively looking at the quantifiable evidence.

You say there is no racial quota. Ok then how come the percentage of Asian admission's has been stagnant at a certain percentage for years? When they first started getting in, they were increasingly becoming a larger percentage of the elite school population.

Then all of a sudden it was capped at a certain percentage. The same percentage for years. That is a racial quota.

All the quantifiable and verifiable data points toward a racial quota. And arbitrary racial quotas = discrimination.

And keep in mind, the universities have a HUGE financial incentive to have a "holistic" approach. All the legacy admissions - rich daddy makes a huge donation and their kid gets in.

But I'm a believer in letting the cream rise to the top.

You think all the top academically performing countries in the world like Asia lets less talented kids get in? Hell no.

In South Korea, if you want to get into a top university, it doesn't matter if you come from a rich family. You still have to do well in the entrance exams.
 
Back
Top