5 ms·

So? If the 1000 best candidates are Asian then you should admit the 1000 Asians. I can see giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense

So? If the 1000 best candidates are Asian then you should admit the 1000 Asians. I can see giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites, but why ding Asians? They weren't responsible for racism in the US. They weren't the ones stealing resources from other people. Do correct me if I'm wrong but your post seems to amount to "a lot of Asians work hard and are smart, so let's have a quota on Asians because they're hardworking and smart in a way I find boring". By the way, as a matter of policy, it seems fine to me if people can become doctors who are smart and who only worked hard because they wanted to become doctors. When I go to the doctor I care mainly about whether they know their shit, not whether they were subjectively "well-rounded" at age 18.

hatmatrix 10y ago
But what is "best"? While their achievements are commendable, admitting all of them will lead to a homogeneous student body and presumably not the best outcome for the institution, its graduates, or society.
- witty_username 10y ago
  What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? Forced diversity is AS racist as discrimination against blacks.
  - tacomonstrous 10y ago
    No, it's not. It's not even in the same universe as discrimination against blacks. I understand that the Asian-American community is a good totem for you to rally your attitudes around, but as a member of it, I'd be happier if you left us out of this hateful rhetoric.
  - pm90 10y ago
    I believe the argument is that diversity promotes creativity and makes students more open minded, since they are exposed to people (and cultures) very different from their own. Having attended both US and Indian universities, I have to say I loved the diversity at the US university; loved the opportunity to know, understand and work with people from all over the world and get to know about them and their way of life.
  - abiox 10y ago
    > Forced diversity is AS racist as discrimination against blacks. for which definition of racist?
  - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
    Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to compel a public school to accept 9 black students was "forced diversity". Every step we've made against racism has been "forced diversity". Denying people the right to intimidate, even murder minorities to keep "a homogeneous student body" is "forced diversity". What it is not is racism. This is the heart and soul of why we no longer tolerate "a homogeneous student body". Because we know how that plays out.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    > What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? the same thing that's wrong with homogeneous anything: too focused on fitting existing patterns, and not very good at adapting to new situations.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    One of the primary criteria I had in choosing which university to attend was one where i could interact with the types of people i never met before... people from different nations, ethnicities, religions, etc. A homogenous area like the one i grew up in has very homogenous thinking and anything outside of it was considered taboo. That's ahat eventually happens when you don't havr diversity.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
> ... giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites ... What if the incoming class only has space for 1000 students? 500? 100?
Cerium 10y ago
I wouldn't believe that the SAT is the only criteria for best.
justaman 10y ago
> I can see giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites, but why ding Asians? They weren't responsible for racism in the US. They weren't the ones stealing resources from other people. White twenty-something college students had nothing to do with this either. I'm against any type of extra help for anyone based on their race. Rather grant extra help based on economic situations.
United857 10y ago
I'm in favor of affirmative action and ensuring diversity. However, it should be based on overall life circumstances, not explicitly on race. E.g. How would you categorize someone who's half black, half Asian? Also, Asian-Americans being the model minority are far from universal. Many (especially those from Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos) are the children of refugees and grow up facing significant hardship.
metaphorm 10y ago
the point is that what criteria are used to distinguish "best candidates" is not necessarily what those types of applicants are optimizing for.
csa 10y ago
Two points: 1. Most applicants to elite schools lack social capital and have not demonstrated the ability to develop it (imho, this is what "leadership" is the code word for, at least in part). The so-called Asian clones fit this description perfectly -- so do many whites, blacks, latinos, etc. I personally don't think it's a race thing, I think it's the universities understanding what got them to where they are (hint: it's their social capital). Most of the Asian-Americans I have met at elite schools don't really come across as tiger-mom clones at all. On a personal level, I found some of the prep school folks to be more like clones and much less interesting as a group (although they have their cool and interesting people, too) -- I assume that many of them are bringing substantial social capital to the table. 2. If someone wants to be a doctor who mostly sees patients, they probably shouldn't be going to an elite school. The trajectory for elite med schools is to do great research in medicine. As such, it is unlikely that you will have an appointment with these folks as a patient. There are plenty of schools that let in "smart and work hard" people who will become great practitioners -- please don't waste a valuable elite school slot on those people. Give it to someone who demonstrates a desire to advance the field (yes, even as an 18 year old, this is possible, these people exist, and many of them are incredibly cool people). Overall, i feel like many of the people who complain about elite school admissions don't really understand what makes these schools tick. While there are certianly parts of the process that could be improved, chalking up rejections to ignorance or racism on the part of the school or the admissions officers just seems very far off the mark. [edit: spelling]
crispyambulance 10y ago
One thing that no one seems to talk about is how to actually determine "best" candidates. Admissions officers at the most elite universities absolutely do take subjective factors into consideration. If they did not, they would end up with a lottery system choosing randomly from a pool "objectively perfect" candidates.
- csa 10y ago
  Your comment is spot on. GPA and SAT scores are only two factors of many. The dirty little secret that most people don't talk about is how many/most elite schools struggle to find the best ways to fill out the bottom 30% or so of their classes. The stand out applicants, the recruited athletes, the connected people, and the demographic people are all accepted, but there are still slots open. This is where the admissions committees take calculated gambles, and it's why some people who are admitted might seem to be headascratchers. Contrary to what many people believe, this is where the subjectivity of admissions is greatest. Be an interesting applicant, and you will be much less exposed to the subjective aspects of admissions to elite universities.
inimino 10y ago
The 1000 kids who studied every night and got that 4.0 GPA because they had to, and played an intrument they hated because they had to, and have never made a single significant decision in their lives, because all the significant decisions were made for them by their parents, and can't come up with an original response to a topic to save their lives, are not the 1000 best candidates. That is the point of having a well-rounded student body and the real reasons why universities exist, which is not just to produce doctors who "know their shit" (and nothing else).

hatmatrix 10y ago

But what is "best"? While their achievements are commendable, admitting all of them will lead to a homogeneous student body and presumably not the best outcome for the institution, its graduates, or society.

witty_username 10y ago
What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? Forced diversity is AS racist as discrimination against blacks.
- tacomonstrous 10y ago
  No, it's not. It's not even in the same universe as discrimination against blacks. I understand that the Asian-American community is a good totem for you to rally your attitudes around, but as a member of it, I'd be happier if you left us out of this hateful rhetoric.
- pm90 10y ago
  I believe the argument is that diversity promotes creativity and makes students more open minded, since they are exposed to people (and cultures) very different from their own. Having attended both US and Indian universities, I have to say I loved the diversity at the US university; loved the opportunity to know, understand and work with people from all over the world and get to know about them and their way of life.
- abiox 10y ago
  > Forced diversity is AS racist as discrimination against blacks. for which definition of racist?
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to compel a public school to accept 9 black students was "forced diversity". Every step we've made against racism has been "forced diversity". Denying people the right to intimidate, even murder minorities to keep "a homogeneous student body" is "forced diversity". What it is not is racism. This is the heart and soul of why we no longer tolerate "a homogeneous student body". Because we know how that plays out.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? the same thing that's wrong with homogeneous anything: too focused on fitting existing patterns, and not very good at adapting to new situations.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  One of the primary criteria I had in choosing which university to attend was one where i could interact with the types of people i never met before... people from different nations, ethnicities, religions, etc. A homogenous area like the one i grew up in has very homogenous thinking and anything outside of it was considered taboo. That's ahat eventually happens when you don't havr diversity.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

> ... giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites ... What if the incoming class only has space for 1000 students? 500? 100?

Cerium 10y ago

I wouldn't believe that the SAT is the only criteria for best.

justaman 10y ago

> I can see giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites, but why ding Asians? They weren't responsible for racism in the US. They weren't the ones stealing resources from other people. White twenty-something college students had nothing to do with this either. I'm against any type of extra help for anyone based on their race. Rather grant extra help based on economic situations.

United857 10y ago

I'm in favor of affirmative action and ensuring diversity. However, it should be based on overall life circumstances, not explicitly on race. E.g. How would you categorize someone who's half black, half Asian? Also, Asian-Americans being the model minority are far from universal. Many (especially those from Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos) are the children of refugees and grow up facing significant hardship.

metaphorm 10y ago

the point is that what criteria are used to distinguish "best candidates" is not necessarily what those types of applicants are optimizing for.

csa 10y ago

Two points: 1. Most applicants to elite schools lack social capital and have not demonstrated the ability to develop it (imho, this is what "leadership" is the code word for, at least in part). The so-called Asian clones fit this description perfectly -- so do many whites, blacks, latinos, etc. I personally don't think it's a race thing, I think it's the universities understanding what got them to where they are (hint: it's their social capital). Most of the Asian-Americans I have met at elite schools don't really come across as tiger-mom clones at all. On a personal level, I found some of the prep school folks to be more like clones and much less interesting as a group (although they have their cool and interesting people, too) -- I assume that many of them are bringing substantial social capital to the table. 2. If someone wants to be a doctor who mostly sees patients, they probably shouldn't be going to an elite school. The trajectory for elite med schools is to do great research in medicine. As such, it is unlikely that you will have an appointment with these folks as a patient. There are plenty of schools that let in "smart and work hard" people who will become great practitioners -- please don't waste a valuable elite school slot on those people. Give it to someone who demonstrates a desire to advance the field (yes, even as an 18 year old, this is possible, these people exist, and many of them are incredibly cool people). Overall, i feel like many of the people who complain about elite school admissions don't really understand what makes these schools tick. While there are certianly parts of the process that could be improved, chalking up rejections to ignorance or racism on the part of the school or the admissions officers just seems very far off the mark. [edit: spelling]

crispyambulance 10y ago

One thing that no one seems to talk about is how to actually determine "best" candidates. Admissions officers at the most elite universities absolutely do take subjective factors into consideration. If they did not, they would end up with a lottery system choosing randomly from a pool "objectively perfect" candidates.

csa 10y ago
Your comment is spot on. GPA and SAT scores are only two factors of many. The dirty little secret that most people don't talk about is how many/most elite schools struggle to find the best ways to fill out the bottom 30% or so of their classes. The stand out applicants, the recruited athletes, the connected people, and the demographic people are all accepted, but there are still slots open. This is where the admissions committees take calculated gambles, and it's why some people who are admitted might seem to be headascratchers. Contrary to what many people believe, this is where the subjectivity of admissions is greatest. Be an interesting applicant, and you will be much less exposed to the subjective aspects of admissions to elite universities.

inimino 10y ago

The 1000 kids who studied every night and got that 4.0 GPA because they had to, and played an intrument they hated because they had to, and have never made a single significant decision in their lives, because all the significant decisions were made for them by their parents, and can't come up with an original response to a topic to save their lives, are not the 1000 best candidates. That is the point of having a well-rounded student body and the real reasons why universities exist, which is not just to produce doctors who "know their shit" (and nothing else).