4 ms·

>Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. Instead it should be the color of your skin

by hnaccy 8y ago

>Academic achievement is not the main criteria for admissions - and at least in an american system it shouldn't be. Instead it should be the color of your skin? That they will underperform is not unsubstantiated in cases like black law students.

KirinDave 8y ago
The entire thesis is that they're starting from harder place, without necessarily having a superior talent distribution. Therefore, it's not unexpected they'd have a longer mean time to peak performance (which is what studies show). The same is true, by the way, of folks with extremely religious anti-science backgrounds (like me!). Either way, graduation standards don't change.
- hnaccy 8y ago
  So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? >which is what studies show Which studies? Graduation standards have changed for all races, in undergraduate institutions grade inflation is rampant and hard curves or class ranks are relics. The performance of the student body and specific demographics is increasingly muddled. In premier law schools affirmative action demographics continue to underperform, as well as have lower LSAT scores which strongly predicts probability of passing the bar.
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? No. And this, "If anything I am an asian supremcist" angle is so dated, so boring, and so tedious I'm not going to entertain you further. Everyone can see what you're doing. Go debate a 6 year old youtube video rather than waste an instant more of 2018's time. Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently, and that economic disparity is clearly reflected in many social scales. We're also acutely aware of many eugenicists using "well asian people are just genetically and culturally better" as a blind in America for their racial oppression for years. That history is well-documented.
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      It's the logical conclusion of your stated thesis and affirmative action as it exists today. >Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently 18th century Chinese laborers are rich and overqualified? Why say "no", whites don't have it harder than asians, then 180 and state that asian americans are all drawn from some privileged group. I'm not a eugenicist I'm just surprised by how easily affirmative actions proponents cast aside asian american concerns and commonly stereotype them as soulless grade grinders with "Tiger Moms" etc.
      - KirinDave 8y ago
        Your argument is wrong and ignores reality. You should feel ashamed of yourself for presenting such a disingenuous and widely debunked argument. This venue demands better. For folks who don't know (hnaccy almost certainly does because this is the standard rebuttal to this lousy argument): Because the Chinese Exclusion Act was a real thing, the total combined Asian American population between the 8th census and the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act never exceeded 500,000 nationally, and that's adding a healthy margin of error. The recruited labor force was minuscule and not a significant contributor to today's booming population of over 20m. It wasn't until after substantial immigration changes (oh, and federally guaranteeing non-whites could own property) that more folks were allowed in, and so we've had a relatively tiny fraction of US history where immigration was possible and desirable (who's gonna immigrate if you're legally forbidden to own a business or a home because of your skin color?). Folks moving in initially were folks who were rich and capable of going to a country with only minimal resources and support structures. The first year after the I&NA came about, the Asian population in America surged by over 200% and has grown at a healthy clip since then, dramatically skewing the characteristics of the population's wealth distribution. So yeah, there's a substantial bias in Asian immigration, which has had a lot less time to give people with less means (a reliable predictor of maximum academic performance). We'd expect to see this in the data if economic resources enable academic performance, which we can point to multiple obvious mechanisms of. hnaccy's argument only makes sense if you believe there is some essential quality to Asian and White genetics that, in isolation of every other factor, reliably makes them "smarter" than black or brown people. Even a casual knowledge of genetics and epigenetics suggests that this is at best radically implausible at worst an outright lie dating back to 1930s propaganda trying to co-opt science for political gain.

by hnaccy 8y ago

KirinDave 8y ago

The entire thesis is that they're starting from harder place, without necessarily having a superior talent distribution. Therefore, it's not unexpected they'd have a longer mean time to peak performance (which is what studies show). The same is true, by the way, of folks with extremely religious anti-science backgrounds (like me!). Either way, graduation standards don't change.

hnaccy 8y ago
So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? >which is what studies show Which studies? Graduation standards have changed for all races, in undergraduate institutions grade inflation is rampant and hard curves or class ranks are relics. The performance of the student body and specific demographics is increasingly muddled. In premier law schools affirmative action demographics continue to underperform, as well as have lower LSAT scores which strongly predicts probability of passing the bar.
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > So you believe that white americans start from a harder place than asian americans? No. And this, "If anything I am an asian supremcist" angle is so dated, so boring, and so tedious I'm not going to entertain you further. Everyone can see what you're doing. Go debate a 6 year old youtube video rather than waste an instant more of 2018's time. Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently, and that economic disparity is clearly reflected in many social scales. We're also acutely aware of many eugenicists using "well asian people are just genetically and culturally better" as a blind in America for their racial oppression for years. That history is well-documented.
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    It's the logical conclusion of your stated thesis and affirmative action as it exists today. >Folks are acutely aware that Asian immigration in the US only allowed extremely rich and overqualified immigrants until relatively recently 18th century Chinese laborers are rich and overqualified? Why say "no", whites don't have it harder than asians, then 180 and state that asian americans are all drawn from some privileged group. I'm not a eugenicist I'm just surprised by how easily affirmative actions proponents cast aside asian american concerns and commonly stereotype them as soulless grade grinders with "Tiger Moms" etc.
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      Your argument is wrong and ignores reality. You should feel ashamed of yourself for presenting such a disingenuous and widely debunked argument. This venue demands better. For folks who don't know (hnaccy almost certainly does because this is the standard rebuttal to this lousy argument): Because the Chinese Exclusion Act was a real thing, the total combined Asian American population between the 8th census and the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act never exceeded 500,000 nationally, and that's adding a healthy margin of error. The recruited labor force was minuscule and not a significant contributor to today's booming population of over 20m. It wasn't until after substantial immigration changes (oh, and federally guaranteeing non-whites could own property) that more folks were allowed in, and so we've had a relatively tiny fraction of US history where immigration was possible and desirable (who's gonna immigrate if you're legally forbidden to own a business or a home because of your skin color?). Folks moving in initially were folks who were rich and capable of going to a country with only minimal resources and support structures. The first year after the I&NA came about, the Asian population in America surged by over 200% and has grown at a healthy clip since then, dramatically skewing the characteristics of the population's wealth distribution. So yeah, there's a substantial bias in Asian immigration, which has had a lot less time to give people with less means (a reliable predictor of maximum academic performance). We'd expect to see this in the data if economic resources enable academic performance, which we can point to multiple obvious mechanisms of. hnaccy's argument only makes sense if you believe there is some essential quality to Asian and White genetics that, in isolation of every other factor, reliably makes them "smarter" than black or brown people. Even a casual knowledge of genetics and epigenetics suggests that this is at best radically implausible at worst an outright lie dating back to 1930s propaganda trying to co-opt science for political gain.