4 ms·

Then why do their admissions numbers line up neatly into racial buckets that match exactly what a social justice person would like to see? I'm not saying you'r

Then why do their admissions numbers line up neatly into racial buckets that match exactly what a social justice person would like to see? I'm not saying you're wrong, but when their internal paperwork seems to indicate an ASTOUNDING difference in "personality" for blacks vs Asians, at a large-numbers level.. I mean do we really buy that? Can we even just consider for a moment how racist that sentiment is? Against both races?

csa 8y ago
1. Asians are over-represented by ~4x versus their percent of the population (5.6 in US and 22.9 at Harvard)... not that this is a useful metric. Is this a stat that SJWs are happy about? I genuinely wonder. 2. Affirmative action is a thing. If you stop the so-called “Asian quota” (e.g., by going race blind), then any slots gained will most likely result in losses for slots from other ethnic minorities. Some people believe that shaping the student body a certain way is good for the university. I personally agree with that general statement, but the specifics are not easy to hash out — there are many trade offs, and it’s not easy to determine where the magic cutoff is for too few or too many. 3. If Harvard goes race blind, don’t believe for a second that it will turn out like Stuyvesant or Berkeley. IIRC, when the change happened, Stuyvesant did not focus on the “multidimensional excellence” that most other elite schools do. Berkeley just lets in too many people to need to review to that level of detail. Harvard and other elite schools might see a very small Asian bump, but my guess is that it won’t be what people expect. Note that I strongly advocate for fairness in the admissions process for all people, and I definitely think that some Asians get stereotyped poorly. That said, I also think that a lot of people, Asians as well as non-Asians, simply don’t make efforts to shape themselves in a way that optimizes their chance for elite school admission.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Thanks for your response. I can't tell if you're disputing my assertion that they first decided what their racial buckets "should" look like, then stack ranked within each bucket and fudged the numbers to make it look less discriminatory. It's that last part that I have a real problem with. If Harvard wants to say, "we want x% black and y% Asian, etc".. ok, I guess, but if they're going to say "black people have lots of personality to make up for their lack of science skills", and vice versa to Asians, that's just racist as hell to everybody involved. Own your decisions.
- throwawaywhynot 8y ago
  Since it's a university I'd assume lots of students applied from their home countries and migrated later. That makes the 4x argument pointless
  - csa 8y ago
    While there are foreign nationals who come in as undergrads, it doesn’t sway the percentage that much (x domestic and 3x international). Most undergrad Asians I’ve met at elite schools are US residents/citizens who have been in the country for a while (i.e., not just someone who came for high school). That can be quite different for grad schools, though.

csa 8y ago

1. Asians are over-represented by ~4x versus their percent of the population (5.6 in US and 22.9 at Harvard)... not that this is a useful metric. Is this a stat that SJWs are happy about? I genuinely wonder. 2. Affirmative action is a thing. If you stop the so-called “Asian quota” (e.g., by going race blind), then any slots gained will most likely result in losses for slots from other ethnic minorities. Some people believe that shaping the student body a certain way is good for the university. I personally agree with that general statement, but the specifics are not easy to hash out — there are many trade offs, and it’s not easy to determine where the magic cutoff is for too few or too many. 3. If Harvard goes race blind, don’t believe for a second that it will turn out like Stuyvesant or Berkeley. IIRC, when the change happened, Stuyvesant did not focus on the “multidimensional excellence” that most other elite schools do. Berkeley just lets in too many people to need to review to that level of detail. Harvard and other elite schools might see a very small Asian bump, but my guess is that it won’t be what people expect. Note that I strongly advocate for fairness in the admissions process for all people, and I definitely think that some Asians get stereotyped poorly. That said, I also think that a lot of people, Asians as well as non-Asians, simply don’t make efforts to shape themselves in a way that optimizes their chance for elite school admission.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Thanks for your response. I can't tell if you're disputing my assertion that they first decided what their racial buckets "should" look like, then stack ranked within each bucket and fudged the numbers to make it look less discriminatory. It's that last part that I have a real problem with. If Harvard wants to say, "we want x% black and y% Asian, etc".. ok, I guess, but if they're going to say "black people have lots of personality to make up for their lack of science skills", and vice versa to Asians, that's just racist as hell to everybody involved. Own your decisions.
throwawaywhynot 8y ago
Since it's a university I'd assume lots of students applied from their home countries and migrated later. That makes the 4x argument pointless
- csa 8y ago
  While there are foreign nationals who come in as undergrads, it doesn’t sway the percentage that much (x domestic and 3x international). Most undergrad Asians I’ve met at elite schools are US residents/citizens who have been in the country for a while (i.e., not just someone who came for high school). That can be quite different for grad schools, though.