Absolutely bad.

College admission should be based on skill and nothing else.

I don't know why this is even an issues.
"god damn those asians and their desire to work hard and get an education!" wtf?

i can say i totally saw some of the "great asian threat" in my career as a radiology tech. the stupid hillbilly white techs got all their panties in a wad about all the asians working in nuclear medicine (which is one of the highest paying modalities in the field) ... like it was some kind of asian conspiracy.. i used to just tell them they weren't allowed to cross train into nuclear medicine because they were too stupid and too lazy and couldn't properly calculate a half life, nor did they understand how it would be possible to image gamma rays. and i was totally right, not one of those fat hens could ever explain to me how to calculate half lives or what a gamma ray was.. but instead of learning and showing their aptitude, they just sat on their fat hill billy asses and bitched that the asians had some kind of club set up to keep whitey from making the big bucks.... fucking stupid whiteys.

I like Milton Friedman's idea: make schools and universities accept anyone who's willing to pay, and abolish this self-selection BS entirely.

After all, universities are supposed to be educating people, right? Why do the "best" universities refuse to take any students except the ones who would be the easiest to teach?

>> ^gwiz665:

Absolutely bad.
College admission should be based on skill and nothing else.

Suddenly racist white people everywhere are for affirmative action. I say complicated but more bad than good. You don't want to discourage underrepresented groups from trying. But at the same time there's nothing more crushing being told you don't qualify for a position because too many people with the same skin pigment or sexual organs as you have already qualified, and they need to let in more less qualified people because they have different skin pigments or sexual organs.

Maybe if we invested more in SCIENCE, and less in war there'd be enough positions for everyone with the drive and skill to obtain them.

I despise any public anything that discriminates. From scholarships to marriage, it's just bad because everyone is forced to pay for it and government shouldn't treat anyone differently.

Private is an entirely different thing.

If the colleges are private, then yeah, that way is doable, it's their choice really. It does mean that the average skill level will fall, though. Rich != smart. A university can only make you so much smarter, and you have to put in the effort. Rich != perseverence.

It really depends on what the college want - the best students or the richest students.

It's all about prestige, not about who is most skillful, which is a shame.

If it's government run colleges, then it ought to be entirely skill based, as it is here in Denmark. There is room for N people and N+x sign up, then the N with the highest grade point average get in and the rest get to wait until next year. (It's a bit crude at times, since GPA isn't always the best indicator, but there are other ways to get in as well, by different applications etc.. long story).

>> ^NetRunner
:

I like Milton Friedman's idea: make schools and universities accept anyone who's willing to pay, and abolish this self-selection BS entirely.
After all, universities are supposed to be educating people, right? Why do the "best" universities refuse to take any students except the ones who would be the easiest to teach?
>> ^gwiz665:
Absolutely bad.
College admission should be based on skill and nothing else.

So you marked "It's complicated" above, right?

They talked about a mix of public and private Universities in that article. Is your stance that anti-Asian discrimination in Univeristy of Pennsylvania is bad, but at Harvard it's okay?

>> ^blankfist
:

I despise any public anything that discriminates. From scholarships to marriage, it's just bad because everyone is forced to pay for it and government shouldn't treat anyone differently.
Private is an entirely different thing.

@NetRunner, I didn't vote.

No, my stance isn't that anti-Asian discrimination at Harvard isn't bad, it just shouldn't be illegal if it's 100% private. I don't know enough about private and public colleges to make a stance one way or another, because I don't know how much government influence or government subsidies if any they receive.

I think my prior comment still applies.

>> ^blankfist
:

@NetRunner, I didn't vote.
No, my stance isn't that anti-Asian discrimination at Harvard isn't bad, it just shouldn't be illegal if it's 100% private. I don't know enough about private and public colleges to make a stance one way or another, because I don't know how much government influence or government subsidies if any they receive.
I think my prior comment still applies.


But in any case, you're saying it's got nothing to do with the rights of the Asians applying to either college. You're saying that the only people in this process who should have any kind of legal right is the owners of the university, right?

And in your ideal world, there would be no publicly funded schooling of any kind, right?

A right to apply? Look, I don't have a problem with Asians applying to any college. I'm not sure that's an infringement of their rights, but it surely shouldn't be a right if the college is 100% private.

Rights, to me, are a bit more than saying someone has a right to apply to any school they damn well please to apply for. If it's public then that's one thing, but if they're private and not enjoying government subsidies then they should have the right to only accept submissions from french fries if that's what they so choose.

Gaining access to private schools isn't a right any more than me gaining access to your home.

So for you, the upshot of the story of Rosa Parks was...what? Bus owners have the right to tell her where to sit for any reason, and if she doesn't like it, she can walk? That the true injustice of that event was that history looks on her as a hero for her successful assault on the rights of business owners everywhere?

>> ^blankfist
:

A right to apply? Look, I don't have a problem with Asians applying to any college. I'm not sure that's an infringement of their rights, but it surely shouldn't be a right if the college is 100% private.
Rights, to me, are a bit more than saying someone has a right to apply to any school they damn well please to apply for. If it's public then that's one thing, but if they're private and not enjoying government subsidies then they should have the right to only accept submissions from french fries if that's what they so choose.
Gaining access to private schools isn't a right any more than me gaining access to your home.

@NetRunner:

Genius, that was a public transit system.

@blankfist so again, that's the only thing at issue? If the bus had merely been privately owned, asking Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus wouldn't have been a violation of her rights? And her refusing to move would've been her violating the bus owner's rights?

It's a complicated issue that can't be summed up in one statement "bad to discriminate".

The linked article doesn't build a convincing case at any rate. California's asian population is huge relative to other states. I lived in a town that was 50% chinese. So, you would expect asian-americans to make up a sizable percentage of admission candidates to california's colleges and universities. Elite people from all walks of life apply to Harvard and the other Ivies. What percentage of asian americans are applying to those schools relative to the other groups?

Re: The kid that had the GPA, test scores, and 7 or so AP credits, and didn't get in, I would say that there is not enough information to understand if he deserved to go or not. Community service? Extra-curricular activities? What about his essay and story? Is this guy some egghead loner? Who wants to go to college with someone who is not well rounded? In addition, did his high school inflate grades? Did he hail from a rich family who could afford tutors to raise his test scores? Lot's of unanswered questions.

As someone who has sat on an admission committee for an Ivy League graduate business school, a perfect GPA and GMAT would not cut it. Not the same as undergrad, but I imagine that there is less fixation on scores as well.

GPA and standardized test scores should obviously be huge factors in admissions, but certainly not the only factors. Also, any smart student would apply to several colleges. Noone should feel entitled to get into any college; admission is not a right.

To echo a sentiment above, I have often felt that colleges should matriculate anyone who wants to go who can do the work. Graduation should be the gate, not admission.

@NetRunner, it's a big difference. One is a representational government forcing people to pay for their salaries and services and then treating them unfairly and unequally. The other would be a private jackass who thinks it's a great business decision to not do business with black people.

>> ^gwiz665:

Absolutely bad.
College admission should be based on skill and nothing else.


Define skill.

Who gets to set the standard for "skill"? And what about the fact that the skills to succeed in high school and on standardized tests are not in most cases the ones that allow success in college.

@longde: "Lot's of unanswered questions."

I think there were key numbers showing discrimination on the basis of race on page 2 of the article:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

@longde: "Who gets to set the standard for "skill.""

Admissions departments base much of their acceptance decisions on SAT scores because their own records and the scientific community consider the scores to be highly predictive of students' grades and graduation rates once they enroll.

"Lot's of unanswered questions."

I think there were key numbers showing discrimination on the basis of race on page 2 of the article:

"[Researchers] found what looks like different standards for different racial groups. They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans."

"Unanswered questions" refered to the one case of the asian student. At any rate, I don't believe that SAT should be a strong factor for admission. It's too correlated to family income.


"Who gets to set the standard for "skill.""

Admissions departments base much of their acceptance decisions on SAT scores because their own records and the scientific community consider the scores to be highly predictive of students' grades and graduation rates once they enroll.



Not even the College Board, who administers the SAT, makes this claim. At best they say that it can be a moderate to strong predictor of first year GPA, depending on the section.

And not to be pedantic, but these studies are statistical, not scientific. There is no "scientific consensus" on SAT scores and performance. In fact, this is a controversial topic. So much so, that some Universities/colleges have even dropped the SAT as a factor in admission entirely.

Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans.

I didn't address this part.

I would love to take a look at this study. Just this statement alone isn't evidence of a problem. There are so many related factors, I don't know where to begin. For example, what is the set of universities? All of them? Even ones where asians don't apply in significant numbers? In that case, of course whites will be 3 times as likely.

The numbers for hispanics and african americans obviously have to do with affirmative action, but also to do with predominately black colleges where asians probably don't apply in significant numbers. I am in favor of affirmative action for formerly oppressed minorities, even if it hurts whites and some asian groups.

Other factors: Pool of applicants? Economic status? What constitutes "Asian"; if that is broken down to Indian, Chinese, Japanese, PI, Thai, etc, what happens? so on, so on, so on......

@longde

I believe those numbers refer to the chances of applicants with equal SATs being accepted. So if an Asian American applicant, a White applicant, and an African American applicant all have 1400 SATs, the White and African American applicants are 300% and 1500% more likely to be accepted.

Asian Americans are formerly oppressed minorites, so I'm not sure why they should be subject to further discrimination.

If we're determined to convince ourselves that this racial discrimination is OK, we'll find countless arguments of one kind or another in support of that cause. A society in which humans are humans is surely where we want to be going.

I believe those numbers refer to the chances of applicants with equal SATs being accepted. So if an Asian American applicant, a White applicant, and an African American applicant all have 1400 SATs, the White and African American applicants are 300% and 1500% more likely to be accepted.
Asian Americans are formerly oppressed minorites, so I'm not sure why they should be subject to further discrimination.
If we're determined to convince ourselves that this racial discrimination is OK, we'll find countless arguments of one kind or another in support of that cause. A society in which humans are humans is surely where we want to be going.

Not to be picky, but "300% more likely" doesn't make sense. I see what you are trying to say, though.

Assuming that this applies to students with equal scores, my questions above still apply. More information is needed to see what is really going on. This statistic is really empty of context, and points the finger at black and hispanic applicants as the root cause of the problem, which is not necessarily so.

I did say some Asians have been discriminated against. If such groups have been affected, let them benefit from affirmative actions policies also (as they are). If they don't want to be, they shouldn't complain about others benefiting.

I find your appeal to stop racial discrimination, even to remedy the results and effects past/present group oppression very naive, because it ignores the historical and present context against which these policies are advocated. It's not like everything was/is equal, and suddenly people are demanding some groups be suddenly discriminated against.

Anyway, in my view, the slots that are given to to affirmative action candidates are not overwhelming. The big row in this thread's issue is between white and asian applicants. Even though the above statistic says that whites are 3 times as likely, the actual spots that are held are far more than the other groups.

@longde I'm not sure how those arguments support the contention that Asian Americans should be subject to racial discrimination.

>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 8th, 2009" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde">longde I'm not sure how those arguments support the contention that Asian Americans should be subject to racial discrimination.


I guess I should go back to the surface on this:

Two things have not been proven by the article or this thread:

1) That there is discrimination against asian americans in admissions.
2) If there is discrimination, what are the underlying reasons.

Lumping all asian americans into one group muddies this issue. The same with lumping all universities and collages into one group. This is better examined on a school/school system basis.

The one stat given above is not proof. If I look at that, then every group but African Americans are being discriminated against. Hispanics and whites should also be building a case with asians.

>> ^blankfist
:

@NetRunner, it's a big difference. One is a representational government forcing people to pay for their salaries and services and then treating them unfairly and unequally. The other would be a private jackass who thinks it's a great business decision to not do business with black people.


But again, you're saying there's no inherent right for Rosa Parks to get treated like a human being. You're saying that maybe she gets a guaranteed right if she pays her taxes, and if she's lucky, every institution she deals with through her life is somehow publicly funded so she can get some basic human dignity...but you're opposed to the existence of any taxes, and any tax subsidy.

Shouldn't someone like Rosa Parks feel like you're trying to take away her right to her fundamental rights as a human being?

@NetRunner, so what human rights are these? Riding on a privately owned bus is a human right now? If she can't get a ride from a racist white man's bus company then she loses her human dignity? This is a bit of a stretch.

Let's bring it back to what really happened in the real world that you and me live in. Rosa Parks' rights were violated by the government. She was forced to pay for the same public transit system which in return treated her unfairly.

The racist, private bus owner is a straw man.

>> ^blankfist
:

@NetRunner, so what human rights are these? Riding on a privately owned bus is a human right now? If she can't get a ride from a racist white man's bus company then she loses her human dignity? This is a bit of a stretch.

Actually, it's the law. From the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

You can read the rest yourself for the exhaustive description of a "public accommodation", but the short summary is that it includes any privately owned public space for engaging in commerce, including buses, lunch counters, hotels, restaurants, etc.
>> ^blankfist
:

Let's bring it back to what really happened in the real world that you and me live in. Rosa Parks' rights were violated by the government. She was forced to pay for the same public transit system which in return treated her unfairly.
The racist, private bus owner is a straw man.


The way you phrase this, it's like you think "the government" was some foreign entity imposing racial discrimination on the South without one lick of support amongst the population. The real story is that after 1964 you had government imposing integration on an unwilling (white) population, and there seem to be at least a few who're still mad about it.

Do you really think there was no one in the South in the 1960's who owned private businesses who refused to serve people on the basis of their skin color?

Since you're hung up on the public/private thing, how about Woolworth's lunch counters? Totally private, totally discriminatory.

Whose rights got violated there, and by who? The Woolworth's owner by the people who wouldn't leave when asked?

@NetRunner, I think where you're getting hung up is here: you think if someone believes government shouldn't regulate people's behavior, then you assume that person must also condone that behavior. You're making politics emotional and personal when it should be objective and reasonable.

If a jackass wants to open a business and exclude certain people based on their race, I don't condone that behavior and wouldn't want my money going to support that establishment. But I also don't want my money going to fund an aggressive government act to stop him. See the difference?

I'm perfectly fine to live in a world where those around me are not like me and don't necessarily hold my same beliefs. And if they don't want to serve me because of my atheism, or my white skin or the cut of my jaw, that's not an act of aggression against me. It may make me "feel" dehumanized and pretty low, but they haven't physically harmed me, stolen from me or made a victim of me because there are no redressable damages.

Again, I don't condone prejudices of people based on skin color, gender, etc.

All Asians should get preferential treatment and fully-paid scholarships...to driving schools!

>> ^blankfist
:

@NetRunner, I think where you're getting hung up is here: you think if someone believes government shouldn't regulate people's behavior, then you assume that person must also condone that behavior. You're making politics emotional and personal when it should be objective and reasonable.

Not really, I'm just asking you to answer how your philosophy would be applied to historical examples.
>> ^blankfist
:

If a jackass wants to open a business and exclude certain people based on their race, I don't condone that behavior and wouldn't want my money going to support that establishment. But I also don't want my money going to fund an aggressive government act to stop him. See the difference?

So, in the historical example, a jackass sets up a cafeteria that's open to the public, but refuses to serve African Americans in it. African Americans think this is a violation of their rights, and protest with peaceful civil disobedience -- they sit, demand to be served, and refuse to leave.

The cafeteria manager calls the police, and demands that they remove the protesters from his property.

What should the police do? If they're to ignore those sorts of things, what philosophically condoned course of action can the cafeteria owner take? What recourse do the protesters have?

In a more abstract sense, whose rights are being violated here? Are the African Americans wrong to think they have a right to be served? Or is their protest actually a violation of the property rights of the cafeteria owner?

>> ^quantumushroo
m:

All Asians should get preferential treatment and fully-paid scholarships...to driving schools!



LOL! Racist.

This question is so poorly worded I don't event know how to answer.

In most states, Asians benefit from affirmative action. Are you asking if affirmative action is bad?

I don't know what the issue is so I voted good because Asian Americans can't drive and have small penises and sideways vaginas and eat dog, did I win something?

[edit] I just read the article and have enlightened myself on the issue, and I stand by my original vote that discriminating against non-white people is good. I am, however biased because I am white, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Fact of the matter is it fucking blows, why the hell would somebody be filtered out because so many with their skin tone have succeeded? Doesn't make sense. What's next? Stopping the NBA and NFL from drafting black athletes?

@Pprt

If you have stats from other sources, or authors criticizing this article, those would be welcome. Until then, though, the article linked to in this poll description has seemingly clear data from a number of lines.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Bad..

amazon=http://www.amazon.com/Big-Test-History-American-Meritocracy/dp/0374527512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303954261&sr=8-1