3 ms·

they might not be rich, but most of them are solidly middle/upper middle class and have a strong family structure in which the parents take a very active role i

they might not be rich, but most of them are solidly middle/upper middle class and have a strong family structure in which the parents take a very active role in their childs life and future. This is not to say Asians don't work hard, in general a lot of them work very hard and have high standards for themselves, but i would say that if they went to a state school vs Harvard, i would bet their future outcomes wouldn't be too different. If someone from a under represented minority who came from a poor family managed to get into Harvard, their future outcomes might change a lot, they could finally get access to a sort of "knowledge" that middle and upper middle class give to their children since the time they are born, a knowledge on what the world is really like and what is possible in this world.

fish45 5y ago
I just want to point out that this is part of the premise of the original article: > Harvard’s admissions policies make me especially queasy, because the burden rests so heavily on Asian Americans. Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. Generally, going to prestigious schools benefits under represented minorities more than it benefits Asian Americans to an extent that affirmative action can be effective at addressing systemic inequalities, but it's still discriminatory against Asian americans to do so. It's a matter of opinion whether it's a good tradeoff or not
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  Is there anything that the admissions committee can do to make sure that admission is totally discrimination free? Even evaluating by pure test results would mean that there is systematic discrimination towards the unprivileged. Asians are extremely well represented at top schools, i'm not sure what they are fighting for?
  - fish45 5y ago
    The thing is that there's two levels of possible discrimination; systemic discrimination and admissions discrimination. Pure test results are discrimination free at the admissions level, but they don't address systemic inequities. To accommodate for systemic inequities, we use admissions discrimination. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing; the author thinks it's a worthy tradeoff. > Asians are extremely well represented at top schools, i'm not sure what they are fighting for? The truth is that Asian Americans have to get higher test scores / GPA / extracurriculars to get into prestigious schools. It's true that this might have a positive affect on reducing systemic discrimination in the long run, but it's hard for Asian American applicants to accept that the burden should be placed on them.

fish45 5y ago

I just want to point out that this is part of the premise of the original article: > Harvard’s admissions policies make me especially queasy, because the burden rests so heavily on Asian Americans. Still, it advances the important goals of exposing students to a somewhat broader range of colleagues and helping to lift more underrepresented minorities into positions in the power elite, which remains heavily white. Generally, going to prestigious schools benefits under represented minorities more than it benefits Asian Americans to an extent that affirmative action can be effective at addressing systemic inequalities, but it's still discriminatory against Asian americans to do so. It's a matter of opinion whether it's a good tradeoff or not

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
Is there anything that the admissions committee can do to make sure that admission is totally discrimination free? Even evaluating by pure test results would mean that there is systematic discrimination towards the unprivileged. Asians are extremely well represented at top schools, i'm not sure what they are fighting for?
- fish45 5y ago
  The thing is that there's two levels of possible discrimination; systemic discrimination and admissions discrimination. Pure test results are discrimination free at the admissions level, but they don't address systemic inequities. To accommodate for systemic inequities, we use admissions discrimination. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing; the author thinks it's a worthy tradeoff. > Asians are extremely well represented at top schools, i'm not sure what they are fighting for? The truth is that Asian Americans have to get higher test scores / GPA / extracurriculars to get into prestigious schools. It's true that this might have a positive affect on reducing systemic discrimination in the long run, but it's hard for Asian American applicants to accept that the burden should be placed on them.