5 ms·

I think the US unofficial quotas against Asians are somewhat similar to the Soviet ones against Jews, though not so spitefully motivated. Essentially, it boils

I think the US unofficial quotas against Asians are somewhat similar to the Soviet ones against Jews, though not so spitefully motivated. Essentially, it boils down to "We don't want our own kids to have to compete on even terms with these hard-working, incredibly studious outsiders."

EliAndrewC 14y ago
I went to a a magnet school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) which does NOT discriminate against Asians in the way that so many colleges do. Last year more than 50% of students were Asian-American. This is what these colleges are trying to prevent, rather than simply wanting to benefit their own children. I'm not sure that I approve of ANY targeted racial goals for schools, though I'm generally in favor of class-based advantages for lower-income applicants.
- praxulus 14y ago
  >I'm generally in favor of class-based advantages for lower-income applicants. I find it hard not to favor this. What's the point of encouraging diversity of skin color if you're not getting much actual cultural diversity? Students at top universities have much more to learn from the experiences of poorer students than they do from other upper middle class students who happen to have darker skin.
milesskorpen 14y ago
I think this issue is a bit overstated — though certainly true to some extent. The most prominent case I've seen made here focuses on PSAT scores and a few other categories which (a) aren't necessarily indicative of success and (b) are biased towards some ethnic groups which prioritize standardized tests. The PSAT in particular is an odd one, since it is mostly irrelevant for any applications -- most Asian-American groups wildly outperform everyone else on the PSAT, but the gap is much narrower on the SAT, which has greater relevance for college admissions, and thus sees more preparation from across ethnic groups.
liber8 14y ago
Can you explain about these "unofficial quotas against Asians"? I'm genuinely curious if this actually exists. Note that less than 5% of Americans are Asian, but: 40% of UC students are asian (and it's higher at Cal, UCLA and UCSD (i.e. the better schools)).[1] 23% of Stanford students are asian (probably higher since that excludes "international" and "decline to state").[2] 26% of MIT students are.[3] In other words, at (a small sampling of) the top schools, Asians are over-represented by anywhere from 400% to 1000%. It just doesn't seem like any sort of quota system exists, looking at the data. [1]http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/diversity-accountability-report-and-appendix-0910.pdf http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/divers... [2]http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/external/under/demographics.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/external/under/demograph... [3]http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N31/admissions.html http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N31/admissions.html
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- gimeq 14y ago
  Under ethnicity-agnostic admissions standards, those percentages may be even higher. Note that Stanford's and MIT's percentatges are notable lower than UC's. Why?
  - yakiv 14y ago
    This is just speculation. California has this: > California’s Master Plan for higher education, adopted in > 1960, guarantees a place in college for every state > resident who can benefit. The historic blueprint produced > systems and programs that have served as models for other > states and for countries across the globe. Stanford is a private university, and MIT isn't in California. The UCs sound like they're public universities. Perhaps the Asian students in California who are blocked out of other universities end up going to UCs instead. This one might be incorrect, but California being on the west coast might mean that there are more Asians per person in California than in many other parts of the US, too.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
doctorpangloss 14y ago
I don't think the experiences are equivalent. Private universities don't have to admit anyone if they don't want to. It's silly to talk about them, when they do all sorts of wonky things. There is no doubt there exists discrimination against Asian-Americans in some American public universities. I think the real question is whether or not there is a systemic or conspiratorial discrimination. In the Soviet Union, where anti-Semitism in education was known to be organized, the State gave harder tests and used the poorer test scores as proof of legitimacy. In the United States, Asian Americans perform above average (though not necessarily substantially so). It doesn't seem to match the character of a conspiracy, at least as we understand it historically. Black students perform considerably worse than average on the ACT standardized tests nationally than Asian Americans perform better. They are underrepresented in college, overrepresented in poverty. Black children, who cannot choose to whom they are born, are overrepresented in the worst school districts. Our government's interests in affirmative action are incredibly complicated, much more so than in the Soviet Union. Recall that until 1954, less than one generation prior to the experience of the gentleman in the article, black students were generally not co-educated with white students in much of America. Pre-Brown v. Board and Jewish Questions is the evidence of systemic, organized discrimination. Not excellent test scores. You and many of the commenters have the consequence of the evidence completely backwards. There is a solution: We live in a free country. If Asian Americans are discriminated against in universities—which I remind you I believe to be true, just not in a conspiratorial way—the best solution is to found a goddamned university for Asian Americans. That wasn't an option in the Soviet Union. Now do we all understand why the experiences aren't equivalent?

EliAndrewC 14y ago

I went to a a magnet school (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) which does NOT discriminate against Asians in the way that so many colleges do. Last year more than 50% of students were Asian-American. This is what these colleges are trying to prevent, rather than simply wanting to benefit their own children. I'm not sure that I approve of ANY targeted racial goals for schools, though I'm generally in favor of class-based advantages for lower-income applicants.

praxulus 14y ago
>I'm generally in favor of class-based advantages for lower-income applicants. I find it hard not to favor this. What's the point of encouraging diversity of skin color if you're not getting much actual cultural diversity? Students at top universities have much more to learn from the experiences of poorer students than they do from other upper middle class students who happen to have darker skin.

milesskorpen 14y ago

I think this issue is a bit overstated — though certainly true to some extent. The most prominent case I've seen made here focuses on PSAT scores and a few other categories which (a) aren't necessarily indicative of success and (b) are biased towards some ethnic groups which prioritize standardized tests. The PSAT in particular is an odd one, since it is mostly irrelevant for any applications -- most Asian-American groups wildly outperform everyone else on the PSAT, but the gap is much narrower on the SAT, which has greater relevance for college admissions, and thus sees more preparation from across ethnic groups.

liber8 14y ago

Can you explain about these "unofficial quotas against Asians"? I'm genuinely curious if this actually exists. Note that less than 5% of Americans are Asian, but: 40% of UC students are asian (and it's higher at Cal, UCLA and UCSD (i.e. the better schools)).[1] 23% of Stanford students are asian (probably higher since that excludes "international" and "decline to state").[2] 26% of MIT students are.[3] In other words, at (a small sampling of) the top schools, Asians are over-represented by anywhere from 400% to 1000%. It just doesn't seem like any sort of quota system exists, looking at the data. [1]http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/diversity-accountability-report-and-appendix-0910.pdf http://diversity.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/divers... [2]http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/external/under/demographics.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/humsci/external/under/demograph... [3]http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N31/admissions.html http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N31/admissions.html

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gimeq 14y ago
Under ethnicity-agnostic admissions standards, those percentages may be even higher. Note that Stanford's and MIT's percentatges are notable lower than UC's. Why?
- yakiv 14y ago
  This is just speculation. California has this: > California’s Master Plan for higher education, adopted in > 1960, guarantees a place in college for every state > resident who can benefit. The historic blueprint produced > systems and programs that have served as models for other > states and for countries across the globe. Stanford is a private university, and MIT isn't in California. The UCs sound like they're public universities. Perhaps the Asian students in California who are blocked out of other universities end up going to UCs instead. This one might be incorrect, but California being on the west coast might mean that there are more Asians per person in California than in many other parts of the US, too.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

doctorpangloss 14y ago

I don't think the experiences are equivalent. Private universities don't have to admit anyone if they don't want to. It's silly to talk about them, when they do all sorts of wonky things. There is no doubt there exists discrimination against Asian-Americans in some American public universities. I think the real question is whether or not there is a systemic or conspiratorial discrimination. In the Soviet Union, where anti-Semitism in education was known to be organized, the State gave harder tests and used the poorer test scores as proof of legitimacy. In the United States, Asian Americans perform above average (though not necessarily substantially so). It doesn't seem to match the character of a conspiracy, at least as we understand it historically. Black students perform considerably worse than average on the ACT standardized tests nationally than Asian Americans perform better. They are underrepresented in college, overrepresented in poverty. Black children, who cannot choose to whom they are born, are overrepresented in the worst school districts. Our government's interests in affirmative action are incredibly complicated, much more so than in the Soviet Union. Recall that until 1954, less than one generation prior to the experience of the gentleman in the article, black students were generally not co-educated with white students in much of America. Pre-Brown v. Board and Jewish Questions is the evidence of systemic, organized discrimination. Not excellent test scores. You and many of the commenters have the consequence of the evidence completely backwards. There is a solution: We live in a free country. If Asian Americans are discriminated against in universities—which I remind you I believe to be true, just not in a conspiratorial way—the best solution is to found a goddamned university for Asian Americans. That wasn't an option in the Soviet Union. Now do we all understand why the experiences aren't equivalent?