7 ms·

The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.

by yibg 6y ago

angry_octet 6y ago
Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.
- bitcharmer 6y ago
  > Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate. This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it. Harvard is also discriminating against Asians because there are 'too many'. This seems quite likely but is a separate issue. The historical injustice is present, but cannot be said to have the same character. I don't think criticism of other minority AA programs is justified, but you can have your own opinion.
    - drak0n1c 6y ago
      Earlier in the 20th century, that reasoning was used to limit the admissions of Jewish students. The issue was cast as their being admitted at a disproportionately large rate as compared to the general population, so corrective measures were implemented. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...
      - angry_octet 6y ago
        Back then, there were zero black students at Harvard. The admissions process can’t become more fair by failing to correct for the vast injustices imposed on African-Americans. Arguing that Black students are taking what rightfully belongs Asian students is just as racist as Harvard’s anti-Jewish policies.
MaysonL 6y ago
How about all the qualified applicants that Harvard rejects in favor of legacy and athletic admits? And why hasn’t Harvard’s enrollment increased in step with its endowment?
Naracion 6y ago
I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and it gets rather bad. Again, I'm not questioning your heart, but I do think that words are powerful and words are how the society group think evolves.
- ekam 6y ago
  That’s not a stereotype- it’s true. Racial disparities is why the SAT got cancelled.
  - mempko 6y ago
    There is nothing in Asian brains that makes them different than non-Asian brains. SAT does not capture people's innate ability but something else.
    - darthrupert 6y ago
      Do you have any basis for thinking so? What else could explain it?
      - mempko 6y ago
        It's entirely cultural. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        darthrupert 6y ago
        Don't you think your theory requires evidence?
deanCommie 6y ago
Since you wrote the "pink" analogy and this post too, I can respond here: The issue of anti-asian quotas at major american universities is absolutely a legitimate one that needs addressing. Here's why it's a little bit more complicated than just: "Let's just remove all criteria for university admission besides high scores. That won't discriminate against asians and be a true meritocracy". Because then, the amount of poor people getting into university would absolutely plummet, and the socioeconomic divide between the classes in the US would only grow further. Being able to do well on tests is a privilige based on having time to study, the money for tutors, and other factors. There is obviously a pure raw talent aspect, and the geniuses of the world might get in regardless of their race or poverty level. But there is not enough geniuses in the world. Most University student bodies are average and slightly above average humans. There has to be some way to promote balance in the student body - racially, economically, culturally. And right now, Asians are disproportionately pay that burden. It should be worked on, and improved. But you should in no way conflate this problem with university admissions with "pink quotas" for hiring diverse groups of talent. The companies that are the most promoting the idea of improving their diversity through initiatives are the largest and richest tech companies. They do so not just because it's beneficial to the bottom line, but also because they can AFFORD to be choosy. Joe Blow Software Co and Fizz Buzz Sandwiches aren't putting in diversity goals in their hiring strategy. They wait for people to come in to apply for jobs, and hope that they can get someone to cover a shift before the end of the week that isn't a drug addict. Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft do it because they know that on any given day for any given position they're going to get 100 resumes, and they have what can only be described as a "loosely scientific" approach to weaning them out to 40 that can be phone screened, 5 that will come onsite, and 1 that will be hired. (Numbers are made up but are close to the real ratios). Everything from the phone screen onward is data driven, meticulous, and kept to a strict quality bar. But the intake process has a lot of randomness, a lot of flexibility, and THAT is where the companies focus to say "Why don't we actually try to interview more women, and minorities for a change. What's the worst that can happen? We phone screen 50 people instead of 40, and so our "onsite efficiency ratio" drops from 12% to 10%. There is no quota. There are goals to improve these numbers. But there is no quota in the professional world.
- reducesuffering 6y ago

The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.

by yibg 6y ago

The Asian students that can't get into Harvard despite higher scores disagree with you.

Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.

bitcharmer 6y ago
> Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.
- angry_octet 6y ago
  It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate. This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it. Harvard is also discriminating against Asians because there are 'too many'. This seems quite likely but is a separate issue. The historical injustice is present, but cannot be said to have the same character. I don't think criticism of other minority AA programs is justified, but you can have your own opinion.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    Earlier in the 20th century, that reasoning was used to limit the admissions of Jewish students. The issue was cast as their being admitted at a disproportionately large rate as compared to the general population, so corrective measures were implemented. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...
    - angry_octet 6y ago
      Back then, there were zero black students at Harvard. The admissions process can’t become more fair by failing to correct for the vast injustices imposed on African-Americans. Arguing that Black students are taking what rightfully belongs Asian students is just as racist as Harvard’s anti-Jewish policies.

MaysonL 6y ago

How about all the qualified applicants that Harvard rejects in favor of legacy and athletic admits? And why hasn’t Harvard’s enrollment increased in step with its endowment?

Naracion 6y ago

I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and it gets rather bad. Again, I'm not questioning your heart, but I do think that words are powerful and words are how the society group think evolves.

ekam 6y ago
That’s not a stereotype- it’s true. Racial disparities is why the SAT got cancelled.
- mempko 6y ago
  There is nothing in Asian brains that makes them different than non-Asian brains. SAT does not capture people's innate ability but something else.
  - darthrupert 6y ago
    Do you have any basis for thinking so? What else could explain it?
    - mempko 6y ago
      It's entirely cultural. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - darthrupert 6y ago
        Don't you think your theory requires evidence?

deanCommie 6y ago

Since you wrote the "pink" analogy and this post too, I can respond here: The issue of anti-asian quotas at major american universities is absolutely a legitimate one that needs addressing. Here's why it's a little bit more complicated than just: "Let's just remove all criteria for university admission besides high scores. That won't discriminate against asians and be a true meritocracy". Because then, the amount of poor people getting into university would absolutely plummet, and the socioeconomic divide between the classes in the US would only grow further. Being able to do well on tests is a privilige based on having time to study, the money for tutors, and other factors. There is obviously a pure raw talent aspect, and the geniuses of the world might get in regardless of their race or poverty level. But there is not enough geniuses in the world. Most University student bodies are average and slightly above average humans. There has to be some way to promote balance in the student body - racially, economically, culturally. And right now, Asians are disproportionately pay that burden. It should be worked on, and improved. But you should in no way conflate this problem with university admissions with "pink quotas" for hiring diverse groups of talent. The companies that are the most promoting the idea of improving their diversity through initiatives are the largest and richest tech companies. They do so not just because it's beneficial to the bottom line, but also because they can AFFORD to be choosy. Joe Blow Software Co and Fizz Buzz Sandwiches aren't putting in diversity goals in their hiring strategy. They wait for people to come in to apply for jobs, and hope that they can get someone to cover a shift before the end of the week that isn't a drug addict. Google and Facebook and Amazon and Microsoft do it because they know that on any given day for any given position they're going to get 100 resumes, and they have what can only be described as a "loosely scientific" approach to weaning them out to 40 that can be phone screened, 5 that will come onsite, and 1 that will be hired. (Numbers are made up but are close to the real ratios). Everything from the phone screen onward is data driven, meticulous, and kept to a strict quality bar. But the intake process has a lot of randomness, a lot of flexibility, and THAT is where the companies focus to say "Why don't we actually try to interview more women, and minorities for a change. What's the worst that can happen? We phone screen 50 people instead of 40, and so our "onsite efficiency ratio" drops from 12% to 10%. There is no quota. There are goals to improve these numbers. But there is no quota in the professional world.

reducesuffering 6y ago