Interesting rebuttal from an AA law student about affirmative action

[Heyyu]

Affirmative Action isn't an Asians best friend? This guy says otherwise. Posted from The Stanford Daily:There is more to life than where one attends college.

I am responding to Andrew Chen’s letter “Affirmative action practices unfair to Asian Americans” (March 3.) He whines about the unfairness of affirmative action practices to Asian Americans. What he focused on too much was affirmative action with respect to college admissions. There is more to life than school.

I’ve got news for him — affirmative action benefits Asians more than it hurts, if you expand your insular views outside of the Ivy League schools. Trust me, this is coming from someone who used to think that affirmative action was the reason he got rejected by MIT and from someone who for a time was quite bitter about it.

I got rejected from MIT 13 years ago, and I figured it was probably because there were too many Asian kids there already. Well, they were right — there are too many Asian kids there already. The problem with the Asian community is that there is too much of a focus on higher education and too much showmanship in getting into the “right” schools. It’s as if these kids based their identify on what Ivy League school they got into. That’s a sad life.

If anything, maybe these brainiacs who got dinged from MIT should end up at State U — and then maybe they’d diversify into fields other than math, science, engineering or medicine. In the long run, the Asian community benefits more if fewer of us went to MIT and worked for Cisco and if more of us went to State U and founded Cisco. Just ask the legions of Asian engineers from MIT (and Stanford) who work for people that graduate (or dropped out of) State U. Would they trade places? Probably. In short, the Asian community needs to diversify — and not place its bets on higher education. There are things out there other than Ivy League schools, and you wonder why few Asian kids end up in the military, entertainment and sports.

So after getting dinged from MIT, how did I come to realize that the Asian community benefits more from affirmative action than not? Well, I ended up at West Point, where no doubt affirmative action played a role in my admissions process. I ended up in the Army, where I commanded a company for a brief time, where affirmative action played another role in my selection. And later on, I watched people like Eric Shinseki rise up through the ranks, where affirmative action no doubt played a role in his selection as Chief-of-Staff of the Army. In the Army, promotions for officers are based on a centralized board process. However, whether you like it or not, promotion is based on affirmative action. Minority officers need to be promoted at rates comparable to white officers, or else the Army forces the board to go back and reconsider the candidates’ files all over again. That’s a direct result of affirmative action. Not a bad system, I think, and it has nothing to do with college admissions.

To say that affirmative action policies hurt Asians because it restricts admissions to top colleges is to adopt a very insular view of the world and frankly shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of affirmative action. So you got that rejection letter from Stanford that says “Sorry, you are otherwise qualified but we just can’t take you.” Deal with it — it won’t be the last time in life that you will be rejected. And honestly, even if we got rid of affirmative action, do you really think that the University will allow Asian enrollment to go higher than it is now? Yeah — and I think Boalt Hall became all Asian after Prop 209 was passed.

Don’t worry, not getting into Stanford is not the end of the world. If anything, you just saved yourselves $160,000 for an otherwise overrated education.

Getting dinged from MIT was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Ryan J. Shih

Graduate Student, Law

[Heyyu]

I think the guy has a point. I've heard so much whining from AA's about not getting into the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, or Cal-Berkeley. I think Asians put way too much emphasis on brand-name schools since there's plenty of other colleges that offer fine quality education and lack Asian students... but yet not many apply because every Asian wants to go to the aforementioned prestige schools (hey, got to give bragging rights to your parents).

However, getting rid of affirmative action entirely would also mean the flipside - the affirmative action that helps Asians in other areas of life. Areas where Asians have been underrepresented but get chosen because they need diversity.

In short, I've noticed a very hypocritical attitude where Asians complain when affirmative action is stacked against us but don't say a word when it benefits them. A good example would be in the news media field where Asians get chosen as news broadcastors... although in this case a dispropriate amount are Asian women, which leds to a whole 'nother stack of stereotypes that's already been documented on here.

Another problem with discussion about affirmative action applicable to universities is that in general, out of the 2,400 colleges in the US... many Asians are underrepresented at 80% of those schools and hence would benefit from affirmative action. Especially at many private liberal arts colleges, even the prestigious ones. So really, overall Asians do benefit from affirmative action when taken as a whole.

But again, much of this discussion is about Asians applying to the few "top" schools. So yes, applying to UC-Berkeley, an Asians number is probably capped out since there's so many applying already. But for instance, they might benefit from applying to other good but overlooked universities like Wake Forest University which lacks Asian students.

Bottom line is that the top universities will try to maintain their "diversity" and admit more black and Latino and Native Americans even if it means sacrificing some of the Asian and white students. Are there faults with that? Yes, yes, and yes. Mainly it becomes a numbers game. So there needs to be adjustments.

HOWEVER, I actually think abolishing affirmative action at the top universities wouldn't help Asians much since as the original article mentioned, there's no way these universities would allow their student population to be all-Asian. White students would probably take up a lot of the spaces instead of the Asians (which they already do under affirmative action... take that away and it'd probably be worse).

So let's say at an Ivy League school it'd probably look like 70% white 25% Asian 5% everyone else. As opposed to 55% white 20% Asian 25% everyone else (BTW, I actually used a stat for one of the most recent Ivy League surveys at one of their schools).

[jaehwan]

The problem with the Asian community is that there is too much of a focus on higher education and too much showmanship in getting into the “right” schools. It’s as if these kids based their identify on what Ivy League school they got into. That’s a sad life.

In other words, if you don't succeed, lower your expectations.

[Heyyu]

In other words, if you don't succeed, lower your expectations.

No, he's saying that Asians put too much value on the prestige universities for name-value rather than for the actual education itself. Which he has a point.

I also don't think he's saying to "lower" your expectations. Life is filled with failures and not everything will go your way. I think far too many Asians expect things to be handed to them on a golden plate instead of going through the ups-and-downs to achieve them. Personally, I think it's admirable how the person got rejected by his school of choice but pulled up his bootstraps and made something of himself instead of whining about it.

[ZhuBaJie]

i definitely agree that affirmative action benefits Asian Americans outside of school. but what i'm wondering is, why must affirmative action in and out of school be bundled together? and why not have a discussion specifically on affirmative action as it is applicable to university admission? i won't go so far as to say that it hurts Asian Americans admission rates, because i think what hurts more is white people thinking there are too many Asians at universities. but race-based affirmative action in university admission is an old bandaid that needs to be casted off. what's better is to use financial status and class as a measure of who needs affirmative action. for one thing, Southeast Asian Americans from refugee backgrounds do not technically qualify under a generalised affirmative action scheme that targets blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, yet they are some of the most at risk groups in the country.

[ZhuBaJie]

No, he's saying that Asians put too much value on the prestige universities for name-value rather than for the actual education itself. Which he has a point.

i'll agree with him when corporate America, and really, American society in general, begin to place less importance in the value of graduating from a school with a "good" name. until then, if i have children someday, hell yeah i'm going to push them to get into schools with the "good" names.

[Heyyu]

what's better is to use financial status and class as a measure of who needs affirmative action. for one thing, Southeast Asian Americans from refugee backgrounds do not technically qualify under a generalised affirmative action scheme that targets blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, yet they are some of the most at risk groups in the country.

I agree there. Class and socioeconomic status is a far better indicator than race. It's no secret that a lot of the Asians (and Latinos and Blacks) that get admitted to the Ivies come from white-collar families. Although in terms of the blacks, many of the Ivies are recruiting immigrant African/Caribbean students who also come from white-collar backgrounds to fill the gap.

Also, I think too many Asians get lumped together. Some of the SE Asian groups are at a real disadvantage compared to the Chinese and Korean kids from upper middle-class families.

[minbo]

Sophestry. Doing well when you have been denied your first choice is not an example of how being "discriminated" in college admissions by affirmative action is good, but rather a reflection upon an individual's ability to make the best of a bad situation. As for anti-discrimination laws affecting minorities in the workplace by private employers, that is not Affirmative Action. That is anti-discrimination. Affirmative Action, while an aspect of anti-discrimination, is an entirely specialized situation.

I personally am not against Affirmative Action, in limited scope and duration. The issue is that the country, satisfied with with Affirmative Action, has taken NO action to deal with the underlying situation that Affirmative Action is trying to make up for, in essence making the makeshift bandaid the "standard of care' on a huge gaping social wound indefinitely.

I also think that instead of Asians paying almost the entire social tax of Affirmative Action (as evidenced in some universities that ended affirmative action), it should be spread equally onto other ethnic and cultural groups.

[Heyyu]

i'll agree with him when corporate America, and really, American society in general, begin to place less importance in the value of graduating from a school with a "good" name. until then, if i have children someday, hell yeah i'm going to push them to get into schools with the "good" names.

Yeah, that's true. But I think Asian families in particular place more value on the name (particularly for bragging rights). I mean, I've met many successful people from average no-name schools succeed and some from really prestigious schools that aren't as successful.

Yeah, it's good if your kid can get into Harvard... but it's not the end of the world if he doesn't. What's important is to instill the right set of values so your kid is prepared to handle anything the world throws at them.

Also, it's dangerous for Asian parents to say that once you get into Harvard, the road will be paved with gold and you got an easy way to success. That's a mistaken notion cause it's absolutely bullshit.

Heck, I've noticed a trend where some Ivy Leaguers are being shut-out because some places won't hire Ivy Leaguers (the notion that they're snooty... especially when the people hiring didn't come from the Ivy Leagues themselves).

But again, if a kid can get into an Ivy League school, good for them. But don't expect the world to bow down and lavish praise cause quite frankly, not everyone gives a damn.

[atlasien]

It's a myth that Asian-Americans are overrepresented at universities.

East Asians are overrepresented in some disciplines but underrepresented in the humanities and social sciences.

This may not seem like a big deal... but English and Sociology majors don't just go on to become burger flippers and bitter spoken-word poets, they also go on to professional grad schools and become lawyers and journalists and bitter middle managers.

The underrepresentation in the humanities means that Asians have a disadvantage in the communications area of business.

I agree, SE Asians get ridiculously discriminated against in the current system.

I would prefer to see affirmative action in university admissions that gave equal weight to both racial and cultural diversity. An African-American (culturally) should have a somewhat (but not completely) different status than a recent Nigerian immigrant, and similarly a Japanese-American would not be lumped in with a Samoan and a Cambodian-American.

But in general, yes Asian-Americans mostly benefit from affirmative action. White people ultimately benefit from it too, even though a lot of them just don't understand that yet.

[Heyyu]

I personally am not against Affirmative Action, in limited scope and duration. The issue is that the country, satisfied with with Affirmative Action, has taken NO action to deal with the underlying situation that Affirmative Action is trying to make up for, in essence making the makeshift bandaid the "standard of care' on a huge gaping social wound indefinitely.

I also think that instead of Asians paying almost the entire social tax of Affirmative Action (as evidenced in some universities that ended affirmative action), it should be spread equally onto other ethnic and cultural groups.

OK, I also agree there. There are many flaws to Affirmative Action. And a person's socioeconomic background is actually more important than their race. But as it is, with all its faults... I still think there needs to be some affirmative action until a better system is put in place. So yeah, it is a makeshift band-aid for the time being until the people in Congress get off their butts and do something about it (and the people in general make it an issue for Congress to get off their butts and do something about it).

And atlasien, you know I like your posts but as for Asians being "underrepresented" in the humanities and social sciences and whatnot... that's the fault of the Asians themselves. Perhaps it's the cultural pressures and handwringing from the parents that says to go into the "safe" and technical areas like medicine or engineering.

Although studies are showing that more Asians are moving into the Humanities and Social Sciences (heck, I majored in the useless "humanities" field when I was in college and yeah, I heard an earful from my parents about my choice, lol).

[Heyyu]

but what i'm wondering is, why must affirmative action in and out of school be bundled together? and why not have a discussion specifically on affirmative action as it is applicable to university admission?

I forgot to mention this before, but another problem with discussion about affirmative action applicable to universities is that in general, out of the 2,400 colleges in the US... many Asians are underrepresented at 80% of those schools and hence would benefit from affirmative action. Especially at many private liberal arts colleges, even the prestigious ones. So really, overall Asians do benefit from affirmative action when taken as a whole.

But again, much of this discussion is about Asians applying to the few "top" schools. So yes, applying to UC-Berkeley, an Asians number is probably capped out since there's so many applying already. But for instance, they might benefit from applying to other good but overlooked universities like Wake Forest University which lacks Asian students.

Bottom line is that the top universities will try to maintain their "diversity" and admit more black and Latino and Native Americans even if it means sacrificing some of the Asian and white students. Are there faults with that? Yes, yes, and yes. Mainly it becomes a numbers game. So there needs to be adjustments.

HOWEVER, I actually think abolishing affirmative action at the top universities wouldn't help Asians much since as the original article mentioned, there's no way these universities would allow their student population to be all-Asian. White students would probably take up a lot of the spaces instead of the Asians (which they already do under affirmative action... take that away and it'd probably be worse).

So let's say at an Ivy League school it'd probably look like 70% white 25% Asian 5% everyone else. As opposed to 55% white 20% Asian 25% everyone else (BTW, I actually used a stat for one of the most recent Ivy League surveys at one of their schools).

[jaehwan]

No, he's saying that Asians put too much value on the prestige universities for name-value rather than for the actual education itself. Which he has a point.

They are one and the same. In general, you will get a better education at a top university than a lower-tiered university. This is just a fact. The reasons are obvious--top schools have more money and prestige, and therefore they can attract top faculty and students.

I'm not saying that you can't get a good education at a state u; obviously you can. But in general, you'll get more of a challenge at the top level. Personally, I'd rather study in a place where I'm being taught by Nobel Laureates and sitting next to class valedictorians than a college that will take anyone who applies. I'd rather work for Google than work for some hole-in-the-wall software company. Prestigious places are generally better since there is more competition.


I also don't think he's saying to "lower" your expectations. Life is filled with failures and not everything will go your way. I think far too many Asians expect things to be handed to them on a golden plate instead of going through the ups-and-downs to achieve them. Personally, I think it's admirable how the person got rejected by his school of choice but pulled up his bootstraps and made something of himself instead of whining about it.

Expecting equal treatment is not expecting a "golden plate." It isn't your "failure" if you were rejected because of your race; rather it was a "failure" of the system to live up to its ideals of equality. Equal treatment should be a right--and according to the U.S. Constitution, it is. Rejecting people from college just because they happen to be of the wrong race is racist. It's a complete moral outrage.

I would be much more inclined to admire someone like Jian Li who fought the system than to admire someone who just learned to live off the crumbs of whatever dropped from the table of a racist system.

[Heyyu]

They are one and the same. In general, you will get a better education at a top university than a lower-tiered university. This is just a fact. The reasons are obvious--top schools have more money and prestige, and therefore they can attract top faculty and students.

I'm not saying that you can't get a good education at a state u; obviously you can. But in general, you'll get more of a challenge at the top level. Personally, I'd rather study in a place where I'm being taught by Nobel Laureates and sitting next to class valedictorians than a college that will take anyone who applies. I'd rather work for Google than work for some hole-in-the-wall software company. Prestigious places are generally better since there is more competition.

Top universities might have more money... but that doesn't mean they're better. Having more money usually means they're more focused on research. And honestly, the quality of undergrad education is not that much better compared to a still good but not as great "second-tier" university. Mostly cause the professors in general aren't that concerned with teaching as they are with their research (not the case with everyone, but from what I've heard at people who've gone to the so-called top prestigious universities).

BTW, as for my own experiences, I went to the University of Chicago which has more Nobel Laureates than anyone else and I honestly didn't feel like I was gaining some great fucking insight. As for the quality of students... yeah, I guess I was surrounded by more egotististical know-it-alls.

I later transferred to my local state university, not as prestigious (and less expensive), but I didn't feel a drop-off in quality. Universities in general are about your own willingness to work and not much hand-holding. There was also a study that showed it's the qualities that got you into the university (rather than the university itself) that will help you succeed in life. In other words, if you're good enough to get into Harvard... regardless of the fact if you actually go or not... you will probably do well.

BTW, I'd rather work for a small start-up where I can feel more hands-on and invested in its potential than just another drone working for Google so I can get extra stock options.

[jaehwan]

BTW, as for my own experiences, I went to the University of Chicago which has more Nobel Laureates than anyone else and I honestly didn't feel like I was gaining some great fucking insight. As for the quality of students... yeah, I guess I was surrounded by more egotististical know-it-alls.

Well, Chicago is second to Cambridge in terms of affiliations (past grads, etc.). And Harvard currently has more Nobels in the faculty. But that's all beside the point, and I get your meaning--obviously Chicago is at the highest tier, perhaps equal to Harvard in many ways.

I later transferred to my local state university, not as prestigious (and less expensive), but I didn't feel a drop-off in quality. Universities in general are about your own willingness to work and not much hand-holding. There was also a study that showed it's the qualities that got you into the university (rather than the university itself) that will help you succeed in life. In other words, if you're good enough to get into Harvard... regardless of the fact if you actually go or not... you will probably do well.

BTW, I'd rather work for a small start-up where I can feel more hands-on and invested in its potential than just another drone working for Google so I can get extra stock options.


You're right; even if Harvard students just sat around playing video games all day, they'd probably still do well because the bar was set so high just to get in. It's also a fact that most people who get into schools like Harvard usually wind up going to Harvard or somewhere similar. (The valedictorian of my high school class actually turned down Harvard in order to go to MIT; it would be unusual if he turned down Harvard to go to a community college.)

My point is that people at places like Harvard or MIT (and MIT people are usually not snooty) tend to be more competitive academically. You're more likely to have a higher percentage of high achievers if you go to a competitive school. You're also more likely to have a higher number of high achieving faculty.

Google people are drones? I beg to differ. Most of the Google people I know are bright, creative, and extremely interesting. Plus, they have the resources of Google behind them, which enables them in many ways to do things that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to do. They didn't become the number one search company in the world by hiring drones.

Anyway, I'm not here to impose my values or observations on you. I just want to stress the point that people have different tastes and preferences. If I want to be surrounded by creative Google people or Princeton people, there is no morally defensible reason why I should be prevented from joining Google or Princeton solely on the basis of my race. Some people like yourself might prefer the smaller environment or the environment with less prestige and attitude, but it's not for everyone.

[LaiSteve66]

I'd have to agree, Ivy League schools are overrated. I think a major problem is the fact that a lot of Asian parents push their kids to try to get into the big name schools and choose certian professions regardless of if the kid actually wants it.

I'm so glad my dad took a hands off approach and let me choose my own way and I'm sure as hell not going to push my kid to try to get into Ivy or be a doctor or lawyer.

Hell if my kid wanted to be an artist, I'd be fine with that.

[Heyyu]

Well, Chicago is second to Cambridge in terms of affiliations (past grads, etc.). And Harvard currently has more Nobels in the faculty. But that's all beside the point, and I get your meaning--obviously Chicago is at the highest tier, perhaps equal to Harvard in many ways.

Ah crap, I shouldn't have mentioned that. I'm not into the whole "elite" stuff and I was also making a point since you said that you'd rather have Nobel Laureates teaching you... but while they're definitely brilliant people, Nobel winners doesn't necessarily mean great teachers.

You're right; even if Harvard students just sat around playing video games all day, they'd probably still do well because the bar was set so high just to get in. It's also a fact that most people who get into schools like Harvard usually wind up going to Harvard or somewhere similar. (The valedictorian of my high school class actually turned down Harvard in order to go to MIT; it would be unusual if he turned down Harvard to go to a community college.)

My point is that people at places like Harvard or MIT (and MIT people are usually not snooty) tend to be more competitive academically. You're more likely to have a higher percentage of high achievers if you go to a competitive school. You're also more likely to have a higher number of high achieving faculty.

Seriously, people overrate name-brand schools. Not saying name-brand schools don't offer quality education... of course they do. But rather a person goes to Harvard or community college... it's what they do afterwards that matters. Success is not a one-way street. There are many different ways to succeed, and every person's view of success is different depending on their values.

Again, I sorta blame Asian parents for imparting on their kids such a linear and limited view of success. Well all parents want to see their kids do well... but we all know Asian parents in particular can have that single-minded obsession with getting their kid into the Ivies (although this is also a first-generation immigrant thing as well). Not saying our Asian parents don't have good intentions. They do. But I just think that can zap some kid's confidence and stiffles their ability to branch out to other potential areas.

BTW, off-topic, MIT is not snooty? Well perhaps not... but my cousin went to MIT and I have to say there's definitely elitist mega-nerds in that bunch :p

Google people are drones? I beg to differ. Most of the Google people I know are bright, creative, and extremely interesting. Plus, they have the resources of Google behind them, which enables them in many ways to do things that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to do. They didn't become the number one search company in the world by hiring drones.

Well on the topic of Google... you're right that Google didn't become the number 1 search company by hiring drones. They did it by taking risks and seizing the opportunity when it presented itself (not to mention being fortuitous and being at the right place at the right time). The founders did go to Stanford (definitely a "prestige" school), but they also went to less "prestigious" state universities for their undergrad degrees.

But ultimately I think regardless of where they went to school they would have succeeded anyways due to their ingeniuty and creativity. Afterall, while the rest of their Stanford peers were attending classes, they were brainstorming the blueprints for Google on the laptops in their dormrooms. And I will bet that the next Google will probably come from some small start-up in the back of some college guy's dormroom as well.

Although now I think Google is starting to become stagnant and lose the excitement and inspiration that made the company so revolutionary when it first started out (just like with the Yahoo guys and AOL dudes). And personally, I think they could improve their damn search engine since I also use it as my main source for internet info.

[jaehwan]

I can't really disagree with anything you say at the beginning of your post. Asian parents sometimes do go overboard by pushing one form of success. And yes, you need to be proactive after you graduate.

My point was that this is all irrelevant to affirmative action. There are better ways to fix Asian culture than to simply have a policy that makes it more difficult to attend prestigious colleges if you're Asian.

And I think we agree on that, right?


BTW, off-topic, MIT is not snooty? Well perhaps not... but my cousin went to MIT and I have to say there's definitely elitist mega-nerds in that bunch :p

It's hard to be elitist if you're a mega-nerd.....


Well on the topic of Google... you're right that Google didn't become the number 1 search company by hiring drones. They did it by taking risks and seizing the opportunity when it presented itself (not to mention being fortuitous and being at the right place at the right time). The founders did go to Stanford (definitely a "prestige" school), but they also went to less "prestigious" state universities for their undergrad degrees.

"Less prestigious state universities?" I disagree again. Larry Page went to the University of Michigan, which, if I remember correctly, is considered by most to be a top tier school comparable to most Ivies and the University of Chicago. Sergey Brin went to University of Maryland, which is a second tier school. His decision may have also been part financial, as his father taught within the system and so his education was probably free.


But ultimately I think regardless of where they went to school they would have succeeded anyways due to their ingeniuty and creativity. Afterall, while the rest of their Stanford peers were attending classes, they were brainstorming the blueprints for Google on the laptops in their dormrooms. And I will bet that the next Google will probably come from some small start-up in the back of some college guy's dormroom as well.

Actually, Google came from their school-related research on informational retrieval. Their knowledge came from work related to their school papers. I've never read anything that says they were skipping classes because of their research; I think they were just studying with everyone else. Their thesis topics had more financial opportunities, and they moved at the right time.

Although now I think Google is to become stagnant and lose the excitement and inspiration that made the company so revolutionary when it first started out (just like with the Yahoo guys and AOL dudes). And personally, I think they could improve their damn search engine since I also use it as my main source for internet info.

Stagnant? I have to disagree again. They're reinventing text based advertising on the web. Google Earth has really only just begun with more and more companies (including the government) incorporating their technology. Only in the past year or so have they posed a challenge to Microsoft in software.

Plus, they're reinventing how companies treat employees. They have a bus service in San Francisco that picks their employees up, saving people time and protecting the environment by running on biofuels. They have a full time cooking staff. Many employees have their own projects in which they are encouraged to expand their own knowledge.

They're doing great things, and I think they're just getting started.

[minbo]

Cut the bullshit about which college is better than some other. It doesn't matter who has a better name, employs more nobel laureates. It doesn't matter if the people still find a way to thrive and succeed or if they founder and sink.

The raw and simple fact is that being DISCRIMINATED against by race sucks ass. It may be acceptable for a LIMITED time to help out another group that has been and still are being discriminated more.

[jaehwan]

Cut the bullshit about which college is better than some other. It doesn't matter who has a better name, employs more nobel laureates. It doesn't matter if the people still find a way to thrive and succeed or if they founder and sink.

The raw and simple fact is that being DISCRIMINATED against by race sucks ass. It may be acceptable for a LIMITED time to help out another group that has been and still are being discriminated more.

Yes, that may all be true, but the conversation has to go "who has a better name," etc. Why? Because whenever discrimination victims like Jian Li complain, the affirmative action fanatics always say, "Well, Penn State is every bit as good as U Penn, it's what you make of it." This is the point that Ryan Shih was making in the original letter (though it smacks of hypocrisy since he's a student at Stanford.). It's important and instructive to reiterate the fact that not all institutions are equal.

Now I agree with you on the last point. What's interesting is that during this whole debate, no one ever claims that affirmative action is to fight discrimination committed by college admissions officers. We all agree that college admissions officers don't discriminate against underrepresented minorities. Rather the affirmative action people support affirmative action as a means to correct discrimination by society.

It's not the job of college admissions to fight discrimination by society, especially when it's racist against another minority group. It's society's job. Let government work to correct it.

[minbo]

I understand what you are saying. By accepting the challenge and arguing what school is better, and if the people can make do once they have been dismissed, means that you have been distracted into a meta-argument.

Sometimes a "name brand" college is not the best education or fit for a student. Sometimes they will have a better life experience or gain better direction in life from an alternate path.

I don't care.

I don't care if it was Apex Tech or Princeton that someone got bounced out of due to race. People saying that some school is better than another or that they can make do, or even do better are just trying to make a pile of shit into a crown of gold. The raw fact that they are trying to gloss over is that someone got discriminated upon by race.

[jaehwan]

People saying that some school is better than another or that they can make do, or even do better are just trying to make a pile of shit into a crown of gold. The raw fact that they are trying to gloss over is that someone got discriminated upon by race.

I'm in agreement. 100%.

[ZhuBaJie]

I mean, I've met many successful people from average no-name schools succeed and some from really prestigious schools that aren't as successful.

of course, especially if you're just talking about undergrad degrees.

i would say that when you're talking about graduate degrees, the prestige of the school matters even more. a PhD in history from University of Delaware is not going to be seen on the same level as a PhD in history from Yale. an MD from the University of Illinois is not going to be seen on the same level as an MD from Johns Hopkins.

[little mixed girl]

there's some stuff i want to add, but don't have time.

but briefly:

if there were no AffAct, the number of asians in universities wouldn't rise.
the ppl do not want to see majority minority schools.

second, aff act is NOT just a race thing.
some colleges have only used race, but i believe many others look at income, location, gender, school, etc and give affirmative action based on those things.

immigrant children and the children of immigrants tend to do a bit better than "native"born kids.
immigrant/1st/2nd gen kids artificially inflate test scores. same with international students who have to have high scores to get in.

ppl have to stop being so selfish and give something to others too.
i probably lost a number of scholarships because i put down "multiracial" instead of checking one.
ok, they don't want mixed ppl. gotta move on.

also, ppl are focusing on aff act at the "big" universities only. what about small ones?

[Heyyu]

there's some stuff i want to add, but don't have time.

but briefly:

if there were no AffAct, the number of asians in universities wouldn't rise.
the ppl do not want to see majority minority schools.

second, aff act is NOT just a race thing.
some colleges have only used race, but i believe many others look at income, location, gender, school, etc and give affirmative action based on those things.

immigrant children and the children of immigrants tend to do a bit better than "native"born kids.
immigrant/1st/2nd gen kids artificially inflate test scores. same with international students who have to have high scores to get in.

ppl have to stop being so selfish and give something to others too.
i probably lost a number of scholarships because i put down "multiracial" instead of checking one.
ok, they don't want mixed ppl. gotta move on.

also, ppl are focusing on aff act at the "big" universities only. what about small ones?

Some good points there. BTW, it's true colleges do look at other factors besides race, and most of the top colleges want a "diverse" well-rounded student body so they'll look at people from lower-income families (particularly the inner-cities) and other less-known geographic areas.

Actually, it helps more if you're an Asian high school student from Montana as opposed to California/NY (areas with large Asian populations). And for international students; colleges will usually favor someone from a country like Ecuador or Somalia or even Mongolia more than they would someone from China or India (the two countries where there's usually tons of applicants).

Due to the fact that a lot of the top colleges receive tons of quality applicants, they can be selective of whom they choose and many of them are really aiming for a diverse student body... including race, gender, income and demographic location.

Also, while it's true that Asians are penalized at the Ivies and some other elite institutions where they apply in large numbers... I do agree that affirmative action is flawed and should only be used as a limited stopgap until something better can be worked out. And yes, being discriminated against by race flat-out sucks. I'm not denying that.

But the ironic fact is that whites are also penalized by affirmative action and I still believe that Asians arguing against affirmative action are playing right into the hands of the whites (many of whom are the most vocal opponents of affirmative action). Because let's face it, the current system penalizes whites and Asians in favor of the underrepresented minority students. And in a perverse way, both Asians and whites are united in a common cause against affirmative action and it's something I'm damn uncomfortable about.

A good example would be the University of California school system, which through proposition 209 actually banned many forms of affirmative action in 1996. The first year it was initiated the African-American enrollment rate dropped at some of the flapship schools like UC-Berkeley and UCLA. And Asian enrollment increased at those schools. But later on as time went on there was only a slight increase in Asian enrollment percentages which had stabilized. And without affirmative action, it was the white students that started taking the spots that would have gone to Black or Hispanic or even Asian students (who actually had to score higher just to get in compared to their white counterparts).

That's why I'm always careful when talking about affirmative action and why I don't automatically support Jian Li's claims because his case seems to be doing a lot of finger-pointing at the underrepresented minorities that take up the spots of Asians (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/13/news/16544.shtml). And as the article mentions: "Li's minority status adds a new twist to the story, however, since previous complaints about universities' racial preference policies have been filed by white students alleging bias".

And will Princeton, the very epitome of an elite Ivy League school in both culture and mannerisms, allow itself to become a UC-Berkeley and have a 40%+ Asian population, even without affirmative action? Probably not.

However, the flipside of affirmative action is that Asians do benefit a lot at many of the "smaller liberal arts colleges" that lack Asian students. Heck, some of the elite liberal art colleges are trying to attract Asian students instead of turning them away. I read an article about this Chinese female student that passed up Stanford to go to Wellesley because they actively recruited her and offered her a full scholarship. One of the recruiters told her that at Stanford (which has a large Asian population), she'd have been just another face in the crowd.

And yes, as for the immigrant thing, they do tend to work harder. There's a study that shows a lot of the black students at the Ivies actually come from the Caribbean/African nations. However, socioeconomics plays a big part too. Statistics show that the higher the socioeconomic bracket, the better educated their kids tend to be.

Especially for those parents who can't pay to send their children to an expensive elite private school if their kids don't get scholarships. For instance, comparing a son of 2 Korean doctors vs. a son of Chinese parents who worked as dishwashers in some back-alley Chinatown restaurant. Of course, there's always exceptions... I've known Asian kids of poor parents who excelled and did well and knew Asian children of upper-class parents who floundered. And vice versa. So really, it depends on the person, but generally speaking lot of immigrants that come to the States with educated backgrounds usually place much more emphasis on education (i.e. like a Chinese engineer or Jamaican doctor or Polish professor or Iranian businessman).

[Heyyu]

BTW, in terms of the controversial issue of college admissions, I actually know someone whose mother is an admissions officer at Mills College in California.

First off, admissions is a pretty subjective thing to begin with. For instance, using the old SAT model, how do they compare someone with a 3.7 GPA and a 1500 SAT score over someone with a 3.9 GPA and 1420 SAT score? The truth is that admissions can be extremely arbitrary and sometimes luck hinges on the admissions officer that's viewing your file, especially if the qualifications of the candidates are relatively equal (which is where Asian students get hurt, since due to stereotypes Asian students get labeled as "quiet" and one-dimensional bookworms due to the model minority stereotype). That's why essays and other stuff like extra-curricular activities are so important. What most top universities want in addition to diversity is students who "stick out" since they get a throng of perfect GPA's and high SAT achieving students.

In fact, if they wanted to, in the past Harvard could pretty much fill their incoming freshman classes with students who scored perfect SAT scores. Although interestingly enough, even though more Asians get perfect on the Math Section, most of the people who achieved perfect SAT scores were whites (at least on the old model). This is not because whites are smarter but rather because so many more white students take the SAT's nationwide so even if 2 million white students take the test... even if only less than .01% get a perfect, that's still 2,000 students. Heck, there's this one funny story about a homeless teen who once scored a perfect SAT (http://www.kcra.com/news/574672/detail.html), lol.

Speaking of Asian students... much has been made about the fact that Asians usually average the highest SAT scores (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_126.asp) which contributes to the model minority stereotype. Although again, this is lumping together all Asians... the East Asians and Indian students tend to get higher scores than some other groups, particularly lower income SE Asian groups. But there's also a pretty big discrepancy even within the Asian population (moreso than any other racial group), with many Asians students who score at the higher end and also many Asian students who score at the lower end (even within the American-born population who don't have problems with English).

Funnily enough, I remember reading this article that was talking about the Ivy schools love of beauty contest winners. They mentioned Miss Korea 2002, who was accepted into both Harvard and MIT. She had high scores (which undoubtedly many other students had as well), but how many high-scoring Asian students can claim that they're a national beauty pageant winner?

And of course, having name value matters as well. Prime Minister Tony Blair's son was accepted into Yale, Harvard, and Princeton and offered full scholarships as well. Bottom line is that many of the top universities care a lot about their reputations and it looks nice in a school brochure when you can say, "Also going to our school is Miss Korea 2002 and the son of Prime Minister Tony Blair."

[little mixed girl]

^ yea i agree.

and when it comes to eliminating aff. act, people will still complain that they are being discriminated against.

i mean, if a person like my mom who's coming from detroit, and has all As, but was at a school that offered no AP courses and wasn't considered "challenging" gets into a college over some kid who had mostly As and Bs, but a school with APs and "challenging" courses; the kid is going to complain that you can't base admission on just grades themselves.

then, now you have parents getting their kids diagnosed with ADD so they can have more time on their SATs. i mean, poor people can't do that.

the school system and society would have to have a major overhaul.
you can't just say that discrimination is illegal and ignore people that are being discriminated against.

i dunno.

when aff. act was about helping white returnee WW2 soilders find housing, jobs and schooling, it was totally chill.

[jaehwan]

But the ironic fact is that whites are also penalized by affirmative action and I still believe that Asians arguing against affirmative action are playing right into the hands of the whites (many of whom are the most vocal opponents of affirmative action). Because let's face it, the current system penalizes whites and Asians in favor of the underrepresented minority students. And in a perverse way, both Asians and whites are united in a common cause against affirmative action and it's something I'm damn uncomfortable about.

As Minbo said, discrimination based on race flat out sucks. What I find perverse is not that Asian and whites are united against affirmative action, but that there aren't more blacks, Hispanics, and other Asians united against it as well.

And will Princeton, the very epitome of an elite Ivy League school in both culture and mannerisms, allow itself to become a UC-Berkeley and have a 40%+ Asian population, even without affirmative action? Probably not.

It's not a question of what they will "allow." If they are discriminating based on race rather than merit, they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. All white golf clubs have had the same attitude, and the U.S. Courts have told many of them that such admission policies are not acceptable.

However, the flipside of affirmative action is that Asians do benefit a lot at many of the "smaller liberal arts colleges" that lack Asian students. Heck, some of the elite liberal art colleges are trying to attract Asian students instead of turning them away. I read an article about this Chinese female student that passed up Stanford to go to Wellesley because they actively recruited her and offered her a full scholarship. One of the recruiters told her that at Stanford (which has a large Asian population), she'd have been just another face in the crowd.

There's a difference between trying to attract people of a certain race and lowering standards. With the Wellesley girl, you're referring to the former. She's probably well qualified, and the scholarship probably had nothing to do with race; she probably still would have received the scholarship if she were white. If they lowered standards for Asians, you can be sure that it would be all over the news media. This isn't affirmative action. Wellesley is just trying to diversify, which is completely acceptable.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, usually refers to the lowering of standards in order to diversify--i.e. an "underrepresented minority" has a 2.25 average in high school which is equal to an Asian with a 4.0. I have no problems with any college expending time and money to attract people who usually don't apply, but the bar should be the same. You can't say that one race has to meet a certain criteria while another has a whole different set of rules.

[little mixed girl]

As Minbo said, discrimination based on race flat out sucks. What I find perverse is not that Asian and whites are united against affirmative action, but that there aren't more blacks, Hispanics, and other Asians united against it as well.
i don't get why more asians and whites are not FOR affirmative action.
like i said, it started after WW2 as a way for soldiers who returned to get jobs, housing and schooling.
and most of that benefitted white men, and they obviously weren't complaining about that.
and they were not going to say "well, you know, this navajo fellow over here deserves this job a lot more than me. he's smarter, he's better at it, and that's just fair."

discrimination based on race is not fair, but you can't really change the rules in the middle of the game; decide that we're all equal and ignore things in the past that have kept minorities from being able to get a foot in the door.

and when asians who are against affirmative action come out and say "oh, it should be based on grades", it seems like they are ignoring their own benefits and the past of those around them who are non-asian minorities or low achieving asians.


It's not a question of what they will "allow." If they are discriminating based on race rather than merit, they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. All white golf clubs have had the same attitude, and the U.S. Courts have told many of them that such admission policies are not acceptable.
and it's not.

There's a difference between trying to attract people of a certain race and lowering standards. With the Wellesley girl, you're referring to the former. She's probably well qualified, and the scholarship probably had nothing to do with race; she probably still would have received the scholarship if she were white. If they lowered standards for Asians, you can be sure that it would be all over the news media. This isn't affirmative action. Wellesley is just trying to diversify, which is completely acceptable.
i don't think you can say that affirmative action lowers standards.

think about this, many minorities (black, asian, hispanic, native american) were required to live in segregated areas that did not allow them access to better education. they had parents who were not allowed to or able to complete their education and therefore were limited in their job choices.

affirmative action takes into account the fact that education in america is erratic and that not everyone has the same opportunities.

to use my mom as an example again, she grew up in detroit. she got all As through high school, graduated a year early and enrolled at umich at the age of 16 or 17 i believe.
her school counselors told her not to try umich and instead to try community college or emu.
she later told me that even though she got all As at that high school, she thought the courses i took during high school were harder than the ones offered at her high school.

my mom's family was poor. she had no money for SAT prep courses, and when she did take them she didn't do that great on them.

is it fair to judge someone with limited funds, bad schools, and counselors who tell them not to try by the same standards as someone that comes from a wealthy neighborhood and family with access to tutors, prep courses, and parents that don't allow them to take parttime jobs because it would interfere with school work?

i've already told you that immigrant children and the children of immigrants artificially raise the GPA standards of all asians.
and many asian immigrants are coming to the US having already graduated university in their home countries. (brain drain)

if your parents have graduated university, then there's a higher possiblity that their children will also.

there are a number of minorities who are the first in their family to attend university. my grandmother had an elementary school education. do you think that people like that have the resources to help their kids in the same way that university grads do?

now, there are more asians coming to the US who are of poorer backgrounds and have limited funds.
affirmative action helps those people too.

affirmative action is not just a race thing, regardless of whether or not you believe so.
each university creates its own affirmative action, and many of them look at things such as socioeconomic level, parents education, etc.

is it wrong to allow people, who have had barriars to their education, the ability to get a university education?

does having a 4.0 mean that you are totally equipped for college?
i know many people who had high high school GPAs that flunked out of/or came close to flunking out of college because they didn't appreciate what they had.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, usually refers to the lowering of standards in order to diversify--i.e. an "underrepresented minority" has a 2.25 average in high school which is equal to an Asian with a 4.0. I have no problems with any college expending time and money to attract people who usually don't apply, but the bar should be the same. You can't say that one race has to meet a certain criteria while another has a whole different set of rules.
why do people who are against affirmative action have to pull crap out like: "a black person with a 2.225 vs an asian with a 4.0"?
do you really think that's how it works?

random black ppl sit around jerking off during class decide to apply to harvard with their .01 GPA and get in over the talented asian or white applicant because they are black?

the criteria is based on school, resources avaliable, family income, difficulty level of the courses taken and other things.

maybe that asian with a 4.0 took mickey mouse courses, while the black person challenged themselves with harder courses and the admissions people saw that?

again, if the universities were so invested in having more asians in their universities, then they would accept more.
they don't.
and those against affirmative action court asians with the idea that there would be more asians in university if there were no affirmative action. that's not true, because they would fill those seats with white people.

which brings me to my next question: why is it that people against affirmative action assume that white and asian students always have higher scores?

an average is just that. it takes all the numbers high and low.
there are white ppl in university with lower GPAs than minorities.

are you complaining to them that they took a seat from talented asians?
no? i bet not.

[jaehwan]

like i said, it started after WW2 as a way for soldiers who returned to get jobs, housing and schooling.
and most of that benefitted white men, and they obviously weren't complaining about that.
and they were not going to say "well, you know, this navajo fellow over here deserves this job a lot more than me. he's smarter, he's better at it, and that's just fair."

I'm not sure where to start, and I'm debating whether it even makes sense to start. I would like to state though that your above statement is completely untrue. You can see the real history of affirmative action here:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html
or here:
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/aahist.html

or just about anywhere else. Affirmative action had nothing to do with white men returning home after WWII. I think you're confusing affirmative action with the creation of the GED.

is it fair to judge someone with limited funds, bad schools, and counselors who tell them not to try by the same standards as someone that comes from a wealthy neighborhood and family with access to tutors, prep courses, and parents that don't allow them to take parttime jobs because it would interfere with school work?

We're not talking about that. For this discussion and all future discussions, you'd be best off limiting your discussion to race because no one is talking about anything else. Bill Cosby's kid has a better chance of making Harvard than a poor Vietnamese refugee because of race. This is the racism that we're discussing.

All this other stuff has zero relevance to a discussion of racism in college admissions.

maybe that asian with a 4.0 took mickey mouse courses, while the black person challenged themselves with harder courses and the admissions people saw that?

You know, and everyone else knows, that this scenario would be the exception rather than the rule. Not even the most fervent supporters of AA are mischaracterizing the situation with this kind of example.

again, if the universities were so invested in having more asians in their universities, then they would accept more.
they don't.
and those against affirmative action court asians with the idea that there would be more asians in university if there were no affirmative action. that's not true, because they would fill those seats with white people.
See Proposition 209.

which brings me to my next question: why is it that people against affirmative action assume that white and asian students always have higher scores?

an average is just that. it takes all the numbers high and low.
there are white ppl in university with lower GPAs than minorities.

I've never met anyone who has assumed that white and Asian students always have higher scores. Not one person. Not sure where you're getting this. Maybe you're just talking to the wrong kind of people.

But the discrepancy among the racial averages is a fact, which would seem to indicate that there is a bias in what college admissions officers will accept for different races.

[Logain]

Interesting topic. It's always nice to see people talk about affirmative action who don't have such a 2-dimensional/ignorant view on the subject. Whether they're for and against it.

Anyway a bit off-topic but what little mixed girl said earlier kind of reminds me of attitudes towards welfare and how much it correlates with attitudes towards affirmative action.

When it first came into play it was seen as a humane and practical solution to aid single white females with children. When minorities started to recieve increasing amounts of welfare it turned into "lazy undeserving blacks leeching off the government and welfare".

There is a very diverse group of people who benefit from affirmative action (I believe overall white women have still benefitted more than anyone since it's creation), but for the most part it's always been seen as a "black thing".

I also agreed with what little mixed girl said about how people tend to not take the sub-par education system in this country into account. Especially for minorities. The socioeconomic argument is all well and good but I think ignoring the aspect of race when it comes to college admissions is ridiculously naive. Even poor white schools in predominantly poor white areas tend to have better teachers, resources, more options (AP classes, preparatory programs, etc) than predominantly poor black schools in poor black areas. Don't even get me started on teacher bias when it comes to education (although LMG gave a great example herself with her mom and her teachers discouraging her from attending a University. That's not uncommon in black and Latino schools and keep in mind 86% of K-12 teachers in this country are caucasian).

The fact that schools have different criteria for admissions is also important. As someone stated earlier I have an extremly hard time believing that if they got rid of affirmative action that it would significantly improve things for Asian-Americans even in an Ivy League setting.

[DONKEY]

whats affirmative action?
i never even heard of the phrase until i got on the internet
went to a community college and later accepted as a transfer student to a uni. nobody along the way ever talked to me about affirmative action.
how does affirmative action work outside of academia?
why should i care about ivy league kids? do they care about me?

[kimtae]

Affirmative action is a way of leveling the playing field long after the real damage has been done. Schools and students need to be guaranteed a fair shot long before college. The real shame is in the disparity between public schools from K to 12.