5 ms·

There's a big difference between the discrimination against Asian-American students (which does happen) and discrimination against students from Asia. For one,

by qntty 10y ago

There's a big difference between the discrimination against Asian-American students (which does happen) and discrimination against students from Asia. For one, public universities exist mostly to educate people from the state they are based, and can justify discriminating against people outside the state and even more against people who don't live in states which exchange students with that state (i.e. people outside the country). Private universities can also say that one of their main purposes is to educate the population of the countries that they are based in. None of this justifies discriminating against Asian-American students, which is truly unjust, and shouldn't be confused for justifiable discrimination.

Naritai 10y ago
But if that (educating their own country's people) were their goal (leaving aside, for the moment, whether we agree on the validity of that goal), it would be much better if they just said so, rather than relying on a stereotype-driven narrative instead.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  I believe they rather educate (and select applicants) based on the values of the country where the university is located. So they don't discriminate actively against Chinese applicants, but against some of the values that the Chinese education system imparts.
BeetleB 10y ago
>None of this justifies discriminating against Asian-American students, which is truly unjust, and shouldn't be confused for justifiable discrimination. I keep hearing this (primarily from Asian Americans who feel they didn't get into their preferred top N school), and yet they never provide evidence to support it. They give me reason and logic, but no evidence. It is trivially easy to find counterexamples to all their reason.
- Naritai 10y ago
  Did you look at the 3 links provided above? To quote from [3]: "They find that being Asian is the equivalent of a 140 point score penalty on your SAT when applying to top private universities. For example, a white student that scored 1360 on the SATs would be on equal footing with an Asian student that scored 1500."
  - willhslade 10y ago
    Asking for a friend: how do they penalize half Asians?
    - Naritai 10y ago
      As far as the statistics go, on the application form they ask you for what race you self-identify as. There are only a certain number of checkboxes so a 'half' just has to choose which box to tick. That's the meaning behind the line in [3]: "Asian-American students face an extra source of stress : deciding whether to respond to the application question asking for their race and ethnicity."
    - csa 10y ago
      They don't penalize Asians or half-Asians at all. Be an interesting person, and your likelihood of getting into a given school increases dramatically, and the odds of getting into at least one of a few that your friend applies to approaches 100%. Feel free to ask more about what "interesting" means.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > Be an interesting person, and your likelihood of getting into a given school increases dramatically > [...] > Feel free to ask more about what "interesting" means. For reasons that are of no relevance here (for the simple reason that this would be rather off topic) I think I know what "interesting person" means here. Perhaps in the future I will be sitting in a panel and be obligated to apply these criteria. But deep inside I think these criteria are a really limited perspective on what an "interesting person" is (I actually often find the kind of person that is selected by these criteria as not too interesting, but I digress). For example what about the kind of people who have rather interesting views on a topic, with which universities often prefer not to be associated with? Or do things that are rather illegal (in terms of law), but can morally be justified? An example: Aaron Swartz and his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto (https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto and https://archive.org/download/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008.pdf https://archive.org/download/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goa...). Or Aaron Swartz' JSTOR action: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldid=760375243#JSTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Swartz&oldid=760763117 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._... Or what about people who have a vocal opinion on a topic that is so far off the typical opinions that one will hear in society that they will polarize people a lot - even though their opinions are very interesting to those who can handle them? Or what about people who tried ambitious things multiple times, but failed at them, stood up again, failed again, ... In other words: Were of the kind that did not fall under the survivor bias/bias for success stories that admission panels select for? TLDR: There exist a lot more kinds of "interesting persons" than what admission panels consider as such.

by qntty 10y ago

Naritai 10y ago

But if that (educating their own country's people) were their goal (leaving aside, for the moment, whether we agree on the validity of that goal), it would be much better if they just said so, rather than relying on a stereotype-driven narrative instead.

wolfgke 10y ago
I believe they rather educate (and select applicants) based on the values of the country where the university is located. So they don't discriminate actively against Chinese applicants, but against some of the values that the Chinese education system imparts.

BeetleB 10y ago

>None of this justifies discriminating against Asian-American students, which is truly unjust, and shouldn't be confused for justifiable discrimination. I keep hearing this (primarily from Asian Americans who feel they didn't get into their preferred top N school), and yet they never provide evidence to support it. They give me reason and logic, but no evidence. It is trivially easy to find counterexamples to all their reason.

Naritai 10y ago
Did you look at the 3 links provided above? To quote from [3]: "They find that being Asian is the equivalent of a 140 point score penalty on your SAT when applying to top private universities. For example, a white student that scored 1360 on the SATs would be on equal footing with an Asian student that scored 1500."
- willhslade 10y ago
  Asking for a friend: how do they penalize half Asians?
  - Naritai 10y ago
    As far as the statistics go, on the application form they ask you for what race you self-identify as. There are only a certain number of checkboxes so a 'half' just has to choose which box to tick. That's the meaning behind the line in [3]: "Asian-American students face an extra source of stress : deciding whether to respond to the application question asking for their race and ethnicity."
  - csa 10y ago
    They don't penalize Asians or half-Asians at all. Be an interesting person, and your likelihood of getting into a given school increases dramatically, and the odds of getting into at least one of a few that your friend applies to approaches 100%. Feel free to ask more about what "interesting" means.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > Be an interesting person, and your likelihood of getting into a given school increases dramatically > [...] > Feel free to ask more about what "interesting" means. For reasons that are of no relevance here (for the simple reason that this would be rather off topic) I think I know what "interesting person" means here. Perhaps in the future I will be sitting in a panel and be obligated to apply these criteria. But deep inside I think these criteria are a really limited perspective on what an "interesting person" is (I actually often find the kind of person that is selected by these criteria as not too interesting, but I digress). For example what about the kind of people who have rather interesting views on a topic, with which universities often prefer not to be associated with? Or do things that are rather illegal (in terms of law), but can morally be justified? An example: Aaron Swartz and his Guerilla Open Access Manifesto (https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto and https://archive.org/download/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008.pdf https://archive.org/download/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goa...). Or Aaron Swartz' JSTOR action: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldid=760375243#JSTOR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Swartz&oldi... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Swartz&oldid=760763117 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._... Or what about people who have a vocal opinion on a topic that is so far off the typical opinions that one will hear in society that they will polarize people a lot - even though their opinions are very interesting to those who can handle them? Or what about people who tried ambitious things multiple times, but failed at them, stood up again, failed again, ... In other words: Were of the kind that did not fall under the survivor bias/bias for success stories that admission panels select for? TLDR: There exist a lot more kinds of "interesting persons" than what admission panels consider as such.