y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 1 Please support Asian American students to fight against racism and race-
based affirmative action in college and university admissions!
Historical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale, as well as many public universities, including Univ. of
Texas, Univ. of Michigan.
Please visit and like http://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 2 个白人的观点说的也有道理：人家如果象亚裔那样学， 一点不输亚裔。 我一时想不出
来如何反驳。
分数上的差异代表不了智力， 最优秀的亚裔孩子，白人孩子， 别的有色人种孩子，
很难说谁比谁成功。 | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 3 Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
) without solid evidence or proof?
Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
Big mouth with little or no substance.
show
of
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Please support Asian American students to fight against racism and race-
: based affirmative action in college and university admissions!
: Historical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
: that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
: institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
: Princeton, and Yale, as well as many public universities, including Univ. of
: Texas, Univ. of Michigan.
: Please visit and like http://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 4 hey, Einstein, before you open your big mouth, did you bother to look at the
evidence collected at the website?
For instance, this article? - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
i sincerely hope that you do your homework and know what you are talking
about before accusing me.
applicants
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
: ) without solid evidence or proof?
: Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
: Big mouth with little or no substance.
:
: show
: of
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 5 If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
fake names.
Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
wrong.
the
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: hey, Einstein, before you open your big mouth, did you bother to look at the
: evidence collected at the website?
: For instance, this article? - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: i sincerely hope that you do your homework and know what you are talking
: about before accusing me.
:
: applicants
| W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 6 贼用贼的法律处理贼做的事， 当然是合法的。盲录他们敢吗？
两百年前白男人上了黑女人， 黑女人要被处死也是合法的。
亚裔自身有诸多问题， 亚裔自己看不到。我也不赞成亚裔主导藤校。一个个的自私书
呆子出来对社会到底有多大用？
prove
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
: to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
: fake names.
: Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
: million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
: wrong.
:
: the
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 7 Remember the Li Jian case back in 2007? There were also many complaints
filed against these schools, the latest being an Indian student.
Dude, so what do you believe, do you believe there is no discrimination or
do you believe there is but Asians are not raising their voice.
What does it have anything to do with me? I am forwarding a link. you are
barking at the wrong true.
prove
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
: to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
: fake names.
: Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
: million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
: wrong.
:
: the
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 8 What you said does make sense to me. Asians have many personality,
character issues. no doubt....trust me, i know this too well (like this 北大
学子 here). but the allegation of discrimination is still valid. In fact,
many people other than Asians reported and documented. check out the website
https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 贼用贼的法律处理贼做的事， 当然是合法的。盲录他们敢吗？
: 两百年前白男人上了黑女人， 黑女人要被处死也是合法的。
: 亚裔自身有诸多问题， 亚裔自己看不到。我也不赞成亚裔主导藤校。一个个的自私书
: 呆子出来对社会到底有多大用？
:
: prove
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 9 What were the results of those two lawsuits?
Both were withdrawn, weren't they?
Using statistical data of SAT scores ALONE to prove discrimination in the
admission process is misguided. It is not an apple to apple comparison and
it does not answer the critical question: Do we need diversity in the
university?
wrong TREE, not wrong TRUE.
are
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Remember the Li Jian case back in 2007? There were also many complaints
: filed against these schools, the latest being an Indian student.
: Dude, so what do you believe, do you believe there is no discrimination or
: do you believe there is but Asians are not raising their voice.
: What does it have anything to do with me? I am forwarding a link. you are
: barking at the wrong true.
:
: prove
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 10 This is not your lab experiments, Einstein, where scientific tests can be
carried out so easily. Just like any discrimination case, it's hard to win
but you know it's there. Most of these cases are settled outside court. Li
Jian eventually got in Harvard. You can't say the case didn't help him but
he got what he deserved.
The diversity question is very much misguided in the debate. Racial
disparity will always be part of human history, like hatred, selfishness,
prejudice, discrimination, poverty, hunger, war. We don't live in a Utopia
and these things will exist. But that is not what we are arguing. We are
saying racial preference given to one group or groups over other groups in
this day and age is hurting the racial equality more than it's intended to
help.
Race-based affirmative action has its limitations. When it was devised 50-
60 years ago, it was intended for a temporary solution. Even Martin Luther
King, Jr. recognized its limitation and said that the fundamental divide in
American society is not between black and white, but between rich and poor,
and it is more sensible to build on their political philosophy to propose
that affirmative action be based on class, not race.......It is wrong to
assure racial preference affirmative action will have to be there forever as
long as there is discrimination. The question to ask is if the critical
mass is reach when majority people judge a person beyond race and skin color
. I believe the time is arrived. If majority of the people in this country
still consider race is more important that character, value, and capability
, then President Obama won’t be elected and reelected again. The world we
are living in now is vastly different from the world when MLK started the
civil rights movement when blacks and whites can’t even go to the same
school and share the same bus.
At the same time, many proponents of race-based affirmative action ignore
the limitation of the tool. It is a form of discrimination (in UK, it is
called "positive discrimination") and now it has moved inexorably away from
its original commitment to remedy past discrimination and instead has become
a means to achieve racial diversity, even if that means giving preference
to upper-middle-class blacks over poor whites. Such perverse outcomes have
undermined the moral legitimacy of affirmative action, which is supposed to
benefit the truly disadvantaged, not the well-to-do. Do you agree that if
Bill Cosby's kids are given preferences in college admissions and employment
opportunities while white coal miner's kids are shut out, then something
has gone very wrong? In the AAAAA, there are many articles and essays
covering the dark side of affirmative action. Now Asian American students
are held at a higher standard than Black, Hispanic, and White. Many
colleges have hidden quotas for Asian students and essentially Asians are
competing against themselves. This is fundamentally against American values
and therefore it is wrong and indefensible.
A sensible approach would be to use socioeconomic status and income to
bridge the gaps. We must move beyond race to achieve the goal that all
races are truly equal. Two wrongs don’t give a right and we must recognize
that.
I encourage you read more on this issue by visiting AAAAA Facebook page.
and
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: What were the results of those two lawsuits?
: Both were withdrawn, weren't they?
: Using statistical data of SAT scores ALONE to prove discrimination in the
: admission process is misguided. It is not an apple to apple comparison and
: it does not answer the critical question: Do we need diversity in the
: university?
: wrong TREE, not wrong TRUE.
:
: are
| | | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 11 If Li Jian said HIMSELF that his lawsuit helped him get into Harvard, I may
believe. Anyone else? Fat chance. Second, what were you implying when you
said "you can't say the case didn't help him"? You meant he intimidated
Harvard?? Or what? Third, which one is better in terms of fairness to Asian
applicants, Harvard or Princeton, according to the Li Jian case? What is Mr.
Li doing these days after graduating from Harvard?
I trust data when obtained the correct way and analyzed under the correct
light. Although you admit that you cannot prove the existence of
discrimination, you and your friends still claimed in your message that "[h]
istorical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale." Isn't it a lie?
Li
but
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: This is not your lab experiments, Einstein, where scientific tests can be
: carried out so easily. Just like any discrimination case, it's hard to win
: but you know it's there. Most of these cases are settled outside court. Li
: Jian eventually got in Harvard. You can't say the case didn't help him but
: he got what he deserved.
: The diversity question is very much misguided in the debate. Racial
: disparity will always be part of human history, like hatred, selfishness,
: prejudice, discrimination, poverty, hunger, war. We don't live in a Utopia
: and these things will exist. But that is not what we are arguing. We are
: saying racial preference given to one group or groups over other groups in
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 12 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
占便宜可就不那么明显了。 | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 13 Dude, can you read english? What I said was it is hard to prove on
individual basis but never said it can't be done. Like any other
discrimination case, such as workplace discrimination and sexual harassment,
it's always hard to prove but these discriminations do exist. don't twist
the logic to prove your point which is invalid. In Li Jian's case, he did
have several strong evidences on his side. If he isn't qualified, can you
explain why Harvard reversed the course and admitted him?
You don't even know what the hell you are talking about. Look at the
statistics. It is more evident looking at data at aggregate level over the
course of two decades.
America’s elite Ivy League universities clearly follow a de facto Asian-
American admissions quota policy according to “The Myth of American
Meritocracy”by Ron Unz. Unz provides detailed statistical evidence that the
pattern of Asian-American enrollment over the last two decades is
remarkably similar to what followed the establishment of Ivy League Jewish
quotas in the mid-1920s. Soon after the U.S. Department of Justice closed
its early 1990s investigation into allegations of anti-Asian admissions bias
at the Ivy League:
•Asian-American numbers at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia began large
declines.
•Asian-American enrollments throughout the Ivy League strangely
converged to very similar levels.
•The college-age population of Asian-Americans doubled during 1993-
2011 as did their top academic awards, but none of this was reflected in
their Ivy League enrollments.
•As one example, the percentage of college-age Asian-Americans at
Harvard dropped by more than 50% during 1993-2011, a larger decline than
that suffered by Jews following the 1925 establishment of ethnic quotas.
•Meanwhile, race-neutral Caltech saw its Asian-American enrollment
increase closely in line with the growth of the college-age Asian-American
population.
•Comparing the Ivy League enrollments of Asian-Americans with those of
high-performing white subpopulations rules out general “diversity”factors
as an explanation for these patterns.
Whatelse do you need? You may be from beida but you clearly lack logical and
critical thinking skills. One more evidence of how Chinese education system
is failing kids.
may
Asian
Mr.
h]
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If Li Jian said HIMSELF that his lawsuit helped him get into Harvard, I may
: believe. Anyone else? Fat chance. Second, what were you implying when you
: said "you can't say the case didn't help him"? You meant he intimidated
: Harvard?? Or what? Third, which one is better in terms of fairness to Asian
: applicants, Harvard or Princeton, according to the Li Jian case? What is Mr.
: Li doing these days after graduating from Harvard?
: I trust data when obtained the correct way and analyzed under the correct
: light. Although you admit that you cannot prove the existence of
: discrimination, you and your friends still claimed in your message that "[h]
: istorical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 14 Did the numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic (especially) rise every year??
Why did not the graph show the numbers of the other ethnic groups together
with the Asian youth? Draw those lines, and you will see different things.
Another way to draw the graph may be to draw the percentage of donations
made to Ivy schools by each ethinic group.
Numbers and percentages is the key concept in flaws in logical thinking.
Another way to see the flaw in the reasoning: according to the graph, if the
Asian population reaches 5 times of its population in 1991, all Ivy League
schools SHOULD admit Asian students ONLY in order to be cleared of the
potential discrimination charge!
Finally, bashing me adds neither strength nor credibility to your argument.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument, is a known
fallacy. | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 15 Beida, like i said, after 2-3 posts, it's evident that you are the biggest
SB on this board. So i just excuse your poor logic and English writing
skill. GO back to school, kid. You don't deserve to get any of my
attention now. F U.
??
together
the
League
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Did the numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic (especially) rise every year??
: Why did not the graph show the numbers of the other ethnic groups together
: with the Asian youth? Draw those lines, and you will see different things.
: Another way to draw the graph may be to draw the percentage of donations
: made to Ivy schools by each ethinic group.
: Numbers and percentages is the key concept in flaws in logical thinking.
: Another way to see the flaw in the reasoning: according to the graph, if the
: Asian population reaches 5 times of its population in 1991, all Ivy League
: schools SHOULD admit Asian students ONLY in order to be cleared of the
: potential discrimination charge!
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 16 Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Beida, like i said, after 2-3 posts, it's evident that you are the biggest
: SB on this board. So i just excuse your poor logic and English writing
: skill. GO back to school, kid. You don't deserve to get any of my
: attention now. F U.
:
: ??
: together
: the
: League
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 17 Thats right. Because so far you have NOT presented any real arguments. I
took my time to write long well reasoned posts.
Let others be the judge regarding who has better arguments. But, i am done
with wasting my time with you, SB. | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 18 You still did not answer my question about the number vs. percentage problem
regarding the graph you presented. That is a typical fallacy.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Thats right. Because so far you have NOT presented any real arguments. I
: took my time to write long well reasoned posts.
: Let others be the judge regarding who has better arguments. But, i am done
: with wasting my time with you, SB.
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 19 Beida, read the damn article. Link is below. Ron has answered it, idiot. if
you can read and understand english.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-ame
problem
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: You still did not answer my question about the number vs. percentage problem
: regarding the graph you presented. That is a typical fallacy.
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 20 Where and where??
Population is a number. Admitted student percentage is a percentage. The
article you cited made the number v. percentage mistake. And you are fooled.
if
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Beida, read the damn article. Link is below. Ron has answered it, idiot. if
: you can read and understand english.
: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-ame
:
: problem
| | | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 21 Told you, moron, you can't read english.
fooled.
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Where and where??
: Population is a number. Admitted student percentage is a percentage. The
: article you cited made the number v. percentage mistake. And you are fooled.
:
: if
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 22 Name calling?? That's your best subject?
Where is the answer to the number vs. percentage problem? The truth is that
the graph was misleading. Statistical data can be manipulated to suit
different purposes. Using number and percentage mis-match is one of the
tricks a writer can use to fool readers.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Told you, moron, you can't read english.
:
: fooled.
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 23 Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
, none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
you. SB. | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 24 On the contrary, it shows that you did not use your own brain to think.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument,
appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is
claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
far
except
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
: , none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
: you. SB.
| n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 25 你咋不说有个黄仆人，为了孩子上个好学校，不敢买房子，四处搬家。这个黄仆人唯独
听不进别人说自己的白主子不好，因为黑仆人厉害，白主子表面上要安抚一下，就用黄
仆人的利益来贴补黑人。这个黄仆人为了白主子能看上自己家娃，拼命被白主子较好，
自己人牺牲再多都没有问题，只要没有牺牲到他家孩子就行。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
: 或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
: 当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
: 。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
: 了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
: 又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
: 分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
: 被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
: 便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
: 占便宜可就不那么明显了。
| k******e
发帖数: 8870 | 26 u hit the nail on the head.
【在 n********h 的大作中提到】
: 你咋不说有个黄仆人，为了孩子上个好学校，不敢买房子，四处搬家。这个黄仆人唯独
: 听不进别人说自己的白主子不好，因为黑仆人厉害，白主子表面上要安抚一下，就用黄
: 仆人的利益来贴补黑人。这个黄仆人为了白主子能看上自己家娃，拼命被白主子较好，
: 自己人牺牲再多都没有问题，只要没有牺牲到他家孩子就行。
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 27 那个图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚
裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧
视了。
反驳：
1）白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能也增加很快，
，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些族裔的学生在绝
大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他们也被歧视了？
2）如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例，应该和亚裔
18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚裔 18 岁到 21
岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚裔才可能避免
种族歧视的标签。
3）仅从华裔人口增加的细节来看，众所周知，大陆来的小留学生数目在 1991 到 2011
爆增。从台湾来的也不会减少。而这些群体刚好部分解释了为什么亚裔 18 岁到 21
岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多。请问，这些人都是聪明绝顶的该上长春藤学校的
学生吗？相反，很多从大陆来的小留学生，在大陆根本考不上大学！
因此，该图混淆数目和百分比的关系，误导读者，犯了逻辑错误。该文作者不了解亚裔
年龄段人数增长的原因，忽视了其它可以解释统计数字的原因，同样是逻辑错误。
下图图标左边是学生的百分比；右边是亚裔适龄人数。典型的曲解数据。
另一个人数百分比图： | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 28 If you read the comments, you would find the following "noise":
1)Jewess says:
December 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses
last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage) of NMS semifinalists
? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and
graduated from an ivy league university. His mother is Jewish; his father is
not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author’s
methods he would have been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of
interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even “IQ” argument? Anecdotally,
my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his ivy league were at
least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use
last names (in lieu of actual demographic data) to make the conclusion that
Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified
Asians is irresponsible.
2) Recent Graduate says:
December 25, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS,
individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect ACT score, National
AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and
Asian – had similar backgrounds and were eminently qualified for Ivy. None
of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr
, the cost is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered
anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were unable/
unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied
to as many Ivies as they could because it was understood that (a) their
parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large
debt load in order to do it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my
own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than we tend to think.
3) chris rowe says:
December 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I’ve been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian
city), and I feel that at least some of Asians’ over-representation in SAT
scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and
money into driving their children’s success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to
attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order to increase their
scores. For example, the few students I’ve ever had preparing for the PSAT
— most students prepare only for the SAT — were all Asian.
Naturally, because it’s so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to
be a practice test, I asked these parents why their 9th or 10th grade child
was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the
PSAT because of its use in the NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send
their children to “cram school” every day after regular school lets out (
and I myself have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially
having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round from
early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the
resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball players who
use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the “merit” in “meritocracy” need not be based
solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore a race-based quota
system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the
attendance rate of hard-driving test-preppers. Maybe the university didn’t
want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they’
re holed up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to
be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz’s piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college — when the
Asian parents’ academic influence over their children is absolute —
whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what
their students do during and after college. Is the kid who went to cram
school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue
practicing his four instruments once his mom isn’t forcing him to take
lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university?
Or did he just peak early because his parents were working him so hard in
order to get him into that college?
4) Michael M says:
December 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Three points:
1. The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for
success. At one point he notes, “Given that Asians accounted for just 1.5
percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished
immigrant families. . .” When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there
were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics,
scientists and businesspeople who came from educated families in China,
Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational values
and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from
Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities, whose parents were usually
working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage
to the first, who were able to claim “diversity” without really having to
suffer for it.
I would expect you’d see the same difference among higher-caste educated
South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and lower castes or from places
like Guyana.
2. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category
as “Asian.” They have different cultural traditions and immigration
histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they’ll answer “
Caucasian.” Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might
be different undermines the credibility of the author.
3. The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for
whites, but that whites are losing against Asians. The percentage of
Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if
invisible quotas for Asians are lifted, there will be far fewer white
students at these schools. This isn’t because of any conspiracy, but
because white students are scoring lower than the competition on the
relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this
publication titled, “Why White Students Are Deficient.” How about some
more writing about “The White Student Achievement Gap?”
His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
, none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
you. SB.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
: , none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
: you. SB.
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 29 你这李双双光腚拉磨，就是不提分数这个最客观的标准下亚裔娃的惩罚性handicap。你
这马楠的婊弟还是回家慢慢涂鞋油去吧。
裔
21
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 那个图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚
: 裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧
: 视了。
: 反驳：
: 1）白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能也增加很快，
: ，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些族裔的学生在绝
: 大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他们也被歧视了？
: 2）如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例，应该和亚裔
: 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚裔 18 岁到 21
: 岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚裔才可能避免
| N*****m
发帖数: 42603 | 30 这个烂人不是说从父母版滚蛋了的么？咋又回来了。
applicants
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
: ) without solid evidence or proof?
: Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
: Big mouth with little or no substance.
:
: show
: of
| | | b**o
发帖数: 5769 | 31 不如来点实际的，建立一个基金会，发奖学金给优秀的华裔学生呢。
我就从来没有看过专门给华裔的奖学金可以申请的。 | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 32 客观？你一个亚裔，如果是学数理化或生物或经济或计算机的本科，周围是亚裔多还是
黑人或西班牙裔多？你知道黑人或西班牙裔大多学文科，而亚裔大都学理科吗？如果藤
校招你去读非洲历史，你去吗？
拿中国高考来说，热门专业（比如英语）的平均分肯定远远高于冷门专业（比如拉丁语
）的平均分。没有这些信息，你能＂客观＂地解释分数差异？
至少从这种不同科目的生源分布和相应平均分来讲，亚裔如果想挤进＂抢手＂的专业，
必须把自己的 SAT 提到高得不能再高，以便把其他的竞争对手挤下去。就和炒学区房
一样！圣地亚哥的犹太地产开发商，背后不知道怎么笑话亚裔买主呢！
再者，特招运动员里面华人多还是其它有色人多？他们的平均分是多少呀？
亚裔其实就是在和亚裔竞争，无论是买学区房还是爬藤。那些以为挤掉黑人就可以增加
亚裔竞争优势的同学们，还是更＂客观＂地看待一下 AA 制吧。真正剥夺亚裔入学资格
的是白人，有钱有势的白人。
比如某年，因为＂legacy admission＂资格而被 UVA 提前录取 （Early Decison）的
学生中，白人和亚裔的比例是：91:5 。当然冷热门专业的分布也会有些影响。但那十
几倍的差距，不能低估。
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: 你这李双双光腚拉磨，就是不提分数这个最客观的标准下亚裔娃的惩罚性handicap。你
: 这马楠的婊弟还是回家慢慢涂鞋油去吧。
:
: 裔
: 21
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 33 这是本好书。讲的是一个文盲妈妈的穷孩子如何成为著名的神经外科医生的故事。
There was a movie with the same title: | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 34 扁豆写的书评如下：
Title: Metamorphosis
Early on in his life, Benjamin Carson realized that he would have to work
harder than anyone else to be truly accepted. In his autobiography Gifted
Hands, Carson documents his brilliant transformation from an unmotivated
ghetto boy to a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, detailing specific
experiences and beliefs that impacted his life. His story, though remarkable
, is written in such a way that it is both relatable and interesting,
utilizing down-to-earth language and humorous anecdotes sprinkled throughout
. Teeming with scientific knowledge and interesting views on the education
system, Gifted Hands gives one an entirely different experience for
schooling. Living life during a time of racial disparity, Carson’s story is
one of remarkable achievement and hope.
In the book, Carson particularly focuses on experiences that improved him or
taught him a lesson. For example, one chapter was entirely about Carson’s
anger management problems in his teenage years, showing how close he came to
fudging up his entire career path. Another gave deference to books, with
detailed passages of Carson poring over them in (successful) attempts to
expand his general knowledge. The importance of hard work comes up multiple
times throughout the book. Dr. Carson truly believes that without his strong
work ethic, composed of long nights studying or reading, he would never
have risen as high in his field. His close ties to family and friends also
give him strength along the way, helping Carson trust his own judgment.
Overall, Carson comes out as a man who is a culmination of his experiences,
and has obviously done his best with the hand he was dealt.
Implied, however, is the idea that sometimes, the choice made is out of one
’s hands. In interviews, Carson insinuates that the decision to hire him
was partially based on his expansive knowledge of classical music. As he is
a surgeon, such a trait is both non-relevant and superfluous, not to mention
rare. However, because he knew in detail about this particular topic,
Carson got the job. In essence, a stroke of luck, both that his interviewer
had a liking for classical music, and that Carson shared it. While such
knowledge takes time and effort to build up, it is incongruous to the skills
neurosurgeons are supposed to have. There were also life-changing decisions
primarily based on trivial things. For example, Carson applied to Yale
based on the fact that they had, according to his memory, wiped out the
opposing team on a TV show called College Bowl. While not a pleasant thought
, Carson’s life seems to be based upon a multitude of fortunate occurrences.
The innovation and steadfast determination that Carson shows throughout his
life makes him a role-model for youth all over the world today, which is
indeed part of his goal. Already, he and his wife Candy have set up the
Carson Scholar Funds, and its website shows it has already set up two
programs. One, Carson Scholarships, gives $1000 scholarship funds for
students who have excellent records of community service and academic
standing, and aims to have one “Carson Scholar” in every school within the
US. As Carson is a great fan of books, the second program is the Ben Carson
Reading Project, which allows schools enough monetary support to build Ben
Carson Reading Rooms for children to pursue independent reading (The
Official). With the immense efforts they have made, the Carsons’ dedication
to giving students a higher level of education shines through.
Gifted Hands appeals to all senses with its vivid imagery and tasteful
descriptions. Phrases like “the smoke from his pipe lent a sweet fragrance
to the room” lend one a distinct odor to characterize the setting with, and
bring a familiarity to the story. Melancholy tones in passages such as
where Carson has to report a failed surgery are received loud and clear. “
‘I’m sorry-I said, and that’s as far as I got. For the first time in my
adult life I began crying in public” is heartbreaking, and the reader can
reach out to both Carson and the family of the deceased. However, the
phrases that caught me up the most had to do with sight, as Carson takes
care to put as much detail into stories as possible. For example, “armies
of roaches streaked across the room, impossible to get rid of” clearly
bring to mind times when insects roamed one’s house and extermination was
high on the to-do list.
One of the most moving parts of Gifted Hands was the range of
hemispherectomies Carson preformed and their aftermaths. Whole sections of
the book are devoted to describing the positive outcomes for patients whom
were performed on: how their seizures stopped or lessened, and how they
began having a normal life afterwards. A hemispherectomy is a surgical
removal of at least part of one hemisphere of the brain, and was at first
thought too dangerous to perform on patients, no matter the area removed.
However, as a young man Dr. Carson reinvented the process and
hemispherectomies are now what John Hopkins’ is known for. According to the
University of Pittsburgh’s neurosurgery department, there are two forms of
a hemispherectomy. The first, functional hemispherectomies, remove parts of
the hemisphere and sever the corpus callosum. Anatomical hemispherectomies,
on the other hand, remove the entire hemisphere (Pittsburgh).
While surgeons at John Hopkins are known to perform the latter, as the
magazine Scientific American notes, anatomical hemispherectomies bleed more
and thus have higher chances of placing a patient in critical condition.
However, they also decrease the risk of disease relapse, and so are usually
only performed once on a patient (Choi). A study of John Hopkins’
hemispherectomy patients in Science Daily also confided that while patients
with severe seizures before had little to none now, they also are partially
paralyzed on the side opposed the removed hemisphere, and lose vision on
that side as well. Though, because children’s brains have a sense of “
plasticity”, they are able to adjust so that the effects are close to null;
corresponding parts on the remaining hemisphere do the same job as if there
were two. The younger the child, the more complete the takeover (Study).
One of the more understated topics of Carson’s life is the influence of
religion upon him. Intertwined into most of his stories, the sense that God
is guiding him and helping him correct his wrongs is felt throughout the
book. For example, when Carson went on a rampage and moved towards one of
his friends with a knife, the blade only hit a belt buckle. Had the stab
connected, his friend would have been severely injured, and Carson’s future
would be ruined. After the event, Carson was so afraid for himself that he
prayed to God furiously in hopes of redemption, and came out a “changed man
”, able to ignore jibes and deliberate attempts to rouse anger from him. A
devout Seventh-day Adventist, Carson believes in the Creationist Theory,
reasoning that it gives more stock to being moral and ethically good. Such
view is obviously controversial in scientific fields, and Emory University’
s faculty and students have gone as far as writing a letter in protest of
Carson voicing his views (Strauss). However, Carson’s embracement of both
science and faith shows that, though the gap between the two ideals is large
, they are still connected.
Benjamin Carson’s life is one of those rags-to-riches stories more expected
in fairy tales, with twists and obstacles to overcome and resulting in fame
and fortune. He set out to make a difference in the world, and ended up
with a legacy far larger than he ever dreamed of. By keeping his moral
compass and utilizing his natural talents, Carson became a famous
neurosurgeon and amassed enough money to give back to his community. Dr.
Carson is a role-model for all, with his perseverance and values giving him
strength to succeed. | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 35 不得不绝望地说， 想和白人斗，把亚洲那２６亿都拉来也不是对手。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 客观？你一个亚裔，如果是学数理化或生物或经济或计算机的本科，周围是亚裔多还是
: 黑人或西班牙裔多？你知道黑人或西班牙裔大多学文科，而亚裔大都学理科吗？如果藤
: 校招你去读非洲历史，你去吗？
: 拿中国高考来说，热门专业（比如英语）的平均分肯定远远高于冷门专业（比如拉丁语
: ）的平均分。没有这些信息，你能＂客观＂地解释分数差异？
: 至少从这种不同科目的生源分布和相应平均分来讲，亚裔如果想挤进＂抢手＂的专业，
: 必须把自己的 SAT 提到高得不能再高，以便把其他的竞争对手挤下去。就和炒学区房
: 一样！圣地亚哥的犹太地产开发商，背后不知道怎么笑话亚裔买主呢！
: 再者，特招运动员里面华人多还是其它有色人多？他们的平均分是多少呀？
: 亚裔其实就是在和亚裔竞争，无论是买学区房还是爬藤。那些以为挤掉黑人就可以增加
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 36 Beida, i know you are hopeless. but again, here is one article by law
professor Heriot on the damaging side of affirmative action in college
admission. read it, moron.......
The Say Irony of Affirmative Action by Prof Gail Heriot
In 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's law school
could substantially relax its admissions standards in order to admit a "
critical mass" of African-American and Hispanic students. Many observers
interpreted that decision — Grutter v. Bollinger — as an
open-ended embrace of affirmative action.
The University of Texas was among the many universities emboldened to ramp
up its use of race-preferential admissions policies. In 2003, the university
already had in place an admissions policy designed to raise the number of
under-represented minority students attending its flagship campus in Austin
by admitting the "top 10%" of the graduates of each Texas high school
without regard to SAT scores. Soon after the Grutter decision, however, the
university announced that it was still dissatisfied with the diversity of
the student body at Austin, 21% of which was composed of under-represented
minorities (16.9% Hispanic and 4.5% African-American), and that the school
would be implementing race preferences to boost that diversity. Under the
new policy, the proportion of the student body composed of Hispanics and
African-Americans rose to 25%.
The result was a lawsuit. The plaintiff — Abigail Fisher
— is a young woman from Texas whose academic credentials were good,
but not quite up to the standards that whites and Asians must meet in order
to gain admission. They were, however, above those necessary for African-
American and Hispanic students. Fisher, who is white, was rejected, and
wound up attending the less prestigious and (for out-of-state students) more
expensive Louisiana State University. Her case — Fisher v.
University of Texas — was argued before the Supreme Court in October.
It will be decided sometime in the coming months.
The Court may decide Fisher on narrow grounds. There are several dimensions
along which the University of Texas's race-preferential admissions policies
are more aggressive than those in Grutter. For example, Grutter permitted
Michigan to use racially preferential admissions policies to admit a "
critical mass" of African-Americans and Hispanics to its overall student
body. Texas, however, takes the position that it needs "critical mass" not
just in its student body as a whole, but in each classroom, program, and
major. Under the "top 10%" policy, Texas had likely already achieved a "
critical mass" of minorities across its student body. Classroom-level "
critical mass," however, requires much more extensive preferences; it could
conceivably justify racial discrimination in course registration and other
more aggressive discriminatory practices.
Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the
opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the
Court's personnel — most notably Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's
replacement with Justice Samuel Alito — as cause for concern.
Since Grutter was a 5-4 decision, it may not take much to swing the Court in
the opposite direction.
The biggest change since Grutter, though, has nothing to do with Court
membership. It is the mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are
doing more harm than good — even for their supposed
beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-
American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using
race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and
lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISMATCH
How could such a miscalculation about the effects of affirmative action
occur? As University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard
Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important,
recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It'
s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of
widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to
enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic
credentials put them toward the bottom of the class. While academically
gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not
enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. When the most prestigious
schools relax their admissions policies in order to admit more minority
students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial
credentials gap at nearly all selective schools.
For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in
connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-
school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the
entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites
were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at
1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd
percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African-American students,
meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile.
This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional-
school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple:
While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some
students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that
their entering credentials suggest.
No serious supporter of race-preferential admissions denies this. In their
highly influential defense of affirmative action, The Shape of the River:
Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions (discussed later in more detail), former Ivy League university
presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok candidly admitted that low college
grades for affirmative-action beneficiaries present a "sobering picture."
This is an understatement: The average African-American first-year law
student has a grade-point average in the bottom 10% of his or her class. And
while undergraduate GPAs for affirmative-action beneficiaries aren't quite
as disappointing, that is in part because, as explained below, affirmative-
action beneficiaries tend to shy away from subjects like science and
engineering, which are graded on a tougher curve than other subjects.
One example that helps illustrate the consequences of mismatch —&#
8197;how lower entering academic credentials depress both academic
performance and grades, and how lower-than-average academic performance and
grades in turn harm professional ambitions — is the field of
academia. In 2003, too late to be cited to the Court in Grutter, Stephen
Cole and Elinor Barber published Increasing Faculty Diversity: The
Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. The authors'
mission was to determine why more members of minority groups are not
attracted to careers in the academy. The authors' conclusions, reached after
extensively questioning 7,612 high-achieving undergraduates at 34 colleges
and universities, pointed to race-preferential admissions as the culprit.
"It is a fact," Cole and Barber wrote, "that in virtually all selective
schools...where racial preferences in admission is practiced, the majority
of African American students end up in the lower quarter of their class."
Lower grades sap the academic self-confidence of African-American students
at elite schools, according to the authors, which in turn causes them to
abandon their freshman interests in academic careers. Their counterparts at
non-elite schools, on the other hand, are more likely to persist and to
ultimately succeed. These counterparts enjoy school, in part because they
correctly perceive that they are good at it, and they want to stay on campus
to pursue careers in academia.
Cole and Barber found that the effect of grades on career ambitions was in
fact substantial. The authors noted that among African-American students
with GPAs at or near 2.6, only about 4% wanted to become college professors.
Among those with GPAs at or near 4.0, however, the number was over 20%.
These findings build on long-established observations about the importance
of grades and perceived achievement. Indeed, as early as 1966, University of
Chicago sociologist James Davis published research demonstrating that a
student who attends a school that is out of his academic league is often put
at a professional disadvantage. In "The Campus as a Frog Pond: An
Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of
College Men," Davis controlled for entering academic credentials and
compared students at schools of different academic rank, examining their
career choices to see which pursued "high performance" careers (in law,
medicine, science, etc.). He found that college GPA correlated more strongly
to career choice than did the academic rank of the school attended. He
explained this finding in terms of the "theory of relative deprivation,"
under which students can be expected to measure their own potential in
comparison to their immediate classmates, generally using one another's
grades as "the accepted yardstick."
Davis put his conclusion in somewhat quaint terms. "Counselors and parents
might well consider the drawbacks as well as the advantages of sending a boy
to a ‘fine' college, if, when doing so, it is fairly certain he will end
up in the bottom ranks of his graduating class," he wrote. Davis's research
spawned a cottage industry in sociological studies on the hazards of being a
"small frog" in a "big pond."
Further support for Cole and Barber's conclusion comes from an unexpected
source: First Lady Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis at Princeton
University, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The
future first lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black
alumni; though the response rate was not overwhelming, the responses of the
89 black alumni who completed the questionnaire gave reason for concern.
Black alumni were asked whether they felt "much more comfortable with Blacks
," "much more comfortable with Whites," or "about equally comfortable with
Blacks and Whites" in various contexts during three different periods in
their lives — before attending Princeton, while students at
Princeton, and after leaving Princeton.
Those who argue that race-preferential admissions foster integration might
be surprised by Obama's findings. In the category of "Intellectual Comfort,"
the number of black alumni who said that they felt "much more comfortable
with Blacks" than with whites in an intellectual setting went up upon
attending Princeton. In their pre-Princeton years, 26% of the respondents
were at greater intellectual ease with fellow blacks than with whites;
during their Princeton years, however, the number climbed to 37%. This sense
of alienation from white students did not appear in other categories of
interaction: For "Sporting Comfort," the change was in the opposite
direction (26% felt more comfortable with fellow blacks prior to Princeton,
compared with 25% who felt more comfortable with fellow blacks while at
Princeton). In the categories of "Dating Comfort" and "Business Comfort,"
the proportions of respondents who felt "much more comfortable with Blacks"
were unchanged.
It is difficult to see how reducing the "Intellectual Comfort" that black
students feel with whites can lead to greater black achievement. Yet this is
just one of the many perverse effects of affirmative action and the
academic mismatch it causes.
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Minority students' lack of interest in academic careers offers one example
of the consequences of mismatch, but the strongest evidence comes from the
fields of science and engineering. Contrary to what many might expect,
college-bound African-American and Hispanic students are just as interested
as white students in majoring in science and engineering. Indeed, empirical
studies show that they tend to be a little more so. But these are difficult
majors that many students abandon. Significantly, African-American and
Hispanic students jump ship at much higher rates than whites.
It is not surprising that students with lower entering academic credentials
give up on their ambitions to get degrees in science and engineering more
often than students with higher academic credentials. What some do find
surprising is this: Three in-depth studies have demonstrated that part of
the effect is relative. An aspiring science or engineering major who attends
a school where his entering academic credentials put him in the middle or
the top of his class is more likely to persevere, and ultimately to succeed,
than an otherwise identical student attending a more elite school where
those same credentials place him nearer to the bottom of his class. Put
differently, a student's chances of success in science or engineering are
increased not only if his entering credentials are high, but also if those
credentials compare favorably with his classmates'.
The earliest of these studies — titled "The Role of Ethnicity
in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions" —&#
8197;was published in 1996 by a team of scholars led by Dartmouth
psychologist Rogers Elliott. It found that the single most important cause
for minority attrition from science at the selective institutions studied
was the "relatively low preparation of black aspirants to science in these
schools." The authors were careful to use the word "relatively." It wasn't
just entering credentials demonstrating highly developed ability at science
that mattered, but comparatively high credentials. A student who attended a
school at which his math SAT score was in the top third of his class was
much more likely to follow through with an ambition to earn a degree in
science or engineering than was a student with the same score who attended a
school at which that score was in the bottom third of the class. The
problem for minority students was that, as a result of affirmative action,
being in the top third of the class was relatively rare.
Elliott and his co-authors cited the extraordinary record of historically
black colleges and universities, which graduate far more than their share of
black engineering and science majors, as further support for their findings
. Unlike at other colleges and universities, credentials gaps are not an
issue at the historically black institutions. As one faculty member at a
historically black school — North Carolina Central University's
Walter Pattillo, Jr. — told Science magazine in 1992: "The way
we see it, the majority schools are wasting large numbers of good students.
They have black students with admissions statistics [that are] very high,
tops. But these students wind up majoring in sociology or recreation or get
wiped out altogether."
A more recent study by University of Virginia psychologists Frederick Smyth
and John McArdle (now at the University of Southern California) confirmed
Elliott's findings. And the effects were not subtle. In "Ethnic and Gender
Differences in Science Graduation at Selective Colleges with Implications
for Admissions Policy and College Choice," Smyth and McArdle found that,
among a sample of under-represented minority students at 23 universities who
intended to major in science, mathematics, or engineering, 45% more of the
women and 35% more of the men would have succeeded in attaining their goals
if they had attended schools where their entering credentials had been about
average.
Another study — this one by Richard Sander, co-author of
Mismatch, and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus — pulled data from
nine University of California campuses. The authors came to a similar
conclusion. "Minority attrition in science is a very real problem," they
wrote, "and the evidence in this paper suggests that ‘negative mismatch'
probably plays a role in it." Their multiple approaches to the data yielded
consistent results: "[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard
deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to
end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students
attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the
mean credentials of their peers."
The evidence that mismatch has hurt African-American and Hispanic students'
chances of having careers in science or engineering was highlighted in a
report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010. The data and
methodology of the research have not been challenged. The researchers'
conclusions have not been rebutted. Nevertheless, the findings have been
ignored by colleges and universities. Indeed, one of the arguments that the
University of Texas makes before the Supreme Court in the Fisher case is
that there are not enough minority students studying science and engineering
to make those classrooms racially diverse. As a result, it claims, greater
race preferences in admissions are needed. But Texas's race-preferential
admissions will likely aggravate rather than alleviate this problem. The
more colleges and universities engage in preferential treatment, the fewer
the African-Americans and Hispanics who will graduate with degrees in
science and engineering.
And the evidence keeps piling up. Recently, Duke University economists Peter
Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and Duke sociologist Ken Spenner found
evidence supporting the mismatch thesis when researching the major choices
of undergraduates enrolled at Duke. In their article in the IZA Journal of
Labor Economics, "What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time
Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice," they found that black
undergraduates were much less likely to persist with an entering goal of
majoring in engineering, the natural sciences, or economics than white
students were. Approximately 54% of black males switched out of these majors
, while only 8% of white males did. Once again, the problem was not lack of
interest in science and engineering among black students: Indeed, before
starting at Duke, more black students than whites indicated an initial
interest in majoring in these subjects. Instead, the differences in
attrition were best explained by entering academic credentials.
These authors also dispelled the common belief that affirmative action
beneficiaries "catch up" after their freshman years with their better-
credentialed fellow students. What happens instead is that many transfer to
majors where the academic competition is less intense and where students are
graded on a more lenient curve. Their GPAs increase, but their standing
relative to their peer groups does not.
This effect is by no means confined to affirmative-action beneficiaries.
White children and grandchildren of alumni who receive legacy preferences
have the same experience, earning lower grades than white non-legacies at
the end of their first year. While the gap narrows over time, it is only
because legacy students, too, shift away from the natural sciences,
engineering, and economics and toward the humanities and social sciences. It
is exceedingly unlikely that anti-legacy bias, lack of legacy role models
on the faculty, or any other argument commonly advanced to explain racial
disparities in science explains the legacies' collective drift toward softer
majors. If it is the wrong explanation for legacies, it is overwhelmingly
likely to be the wrong explanation for under-represented minorities, too.
The study created a firestorm at Duke. Unfortunately, the administration,
instead of taking the research to heart, focused on pacifying indignant
students, alumni, and faculty members who were insulted by the results. In
an open letter to the campus responding to demands that the university
condemn the study, provost Peter Lange and other administrators stated that
they "understand how the conclusions of the research paper can be
interpreted in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes." They assured
students that there are no easy fields of study at Duke and took the
position that, insofar as the mammoth problem identified in the study exists
, it could easily be solved through student counseling and a few tweaks to
the science curriculum.
Evidently, business will remain as usual at Duke. Potential affirmative-
action recruits with an interest in science and engineering will continue to
be told that Duke is the school for them. They will not be told that their
chances of success in their chosen fields would be greater at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Nor will they be told that if they switch
majors to disciplines like African and African-American Studies, Art
History, English, Sociology, and Women's Studies, they are less likely to
enjoy lucrative careers or indeed to get jobs at all. In securities law,
this would qualify as actionable fraud. In higher education, it is
considered forward thinking.
THE MISSING BLACK LAWYERS
The problem of relative performance and credential mismatch does not end
with college graduation. It extends to professional schools as well, and is
particularly evident at America's law schools. Shortly after Cole and Barber
's book was published, Mismatch co-author Richard Sander published a study
of law schools titled "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American
Law Schools." His findings were similar. Outside of historically black
colleges and universities, up and down the law-school hierarchy, the average
African-American student had an academic index — a combination
of GPA and LSAT score — more than two standard deviations
below that of his average white classmate. Indeed, at some law schools,
there was no overlap between the entering credentials of African-American
students and those of white students (Sander did not study Hispanic students
). These gaps in entering credentials affect student performance: Sander's
research demonstrated that more than half of African-American law students
had first-year GPAs in the bottom 10% of their classes. Even critics of
Sander's ultimate conclusions agreed that these findings were both true and
troubling.
Only slightly more controversial was Sander's finding that this effect was
almost entirely the result of affirmative action. When African-American and
white law students with similar entering credentials competed against one
another, they performed very close to the same. Race-based admissions were
thus creating the illusion that African-Americans are somehow destined to be
poor law students. The truth is that, if they were attending schools where
their credentials matched the average student's, they would be just as
likely to do well.
Strangely, however, African-American and white students with identical
entering credentials were not performing similarly on the bar exam. Sander
showed that the likely reason is that they are not attending the same
schools. The African-American students were more likely to be at law schools
that are more theoretical in their approach and where "teaching to the bar
exam" is considered déclassé. Rather than benefiting from the more
competitive learning environment these schools offer, African-American
students were falling behind their white academic counterparts who were
attending somewhat less competitive schools. Sander's critics, on the other
hand, had no explanation for why white students perform better on the bar
exam than African-American students with identical credentials.
Under Sander's calculations, if law schools were to use race-neutral
admissions policies, fewer African-American students would be admitted to
law schools. But since those who were admitted would be attending schools
where they were very likely to do well, fewer would fail or drop out. In the
end, more would pass the bar exam on their first try (1,896 versus 1,567
successful African-American first-time test takers among the graduating
class of 2004) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 versus 1,981
among that same class) than under current admissions practices.
Sander's research was criticized by proponents of race-preferential
admissions on the ground that it was just one study, and Sander agreed that
more research would be desirable. He used the best and most recent data
available at the time, and his calculations have been verified by others,
but surely confirming the results with a different and more recent database
would have been useful. In a report issued in 2007, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights urged grant-making agencies to fund research into this issue
and requested that state bar associations cooperate with this research.
Unfortunately, something closer to the opposite has happened. In order to
confirm his initial findings, Sander assembled an ideologically diverse team
of investigators and sought data from the State Bar of California. Urged
not to cooperate by some of the very same people who had previously
complained that Sander needed more evidence, the state bar denied the team
access. It didn't matter that Gerald Reynolds, chairman of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, flew to San Francisco to ask personally for the
state bar's cooperation. It didn't matter that the data had been cheerfully
shared with other researchers. The California bar wanted no part of this
important research. A court battle is now underway.
Meanwhile, Sander and University of Arizona law professor Jane Yakowitz
Bambauer have taken to examining one the most dearly held beliefs of
affirmative-action advocates — that enrolling in the most
prestigious school one can get into is the key to success. This premise,
central to affirmative action, turns out to be false: In predicting future
income, getting good grades in law school matters more than getting into a
top law school. And as Sander and Bambauer demonstrate in "The Secret of My
Success: How Status, Eliteness and School Performance Shape Legal Careers,"
this is true for law students generally, not just under-represented
minorities.
Put differently, aspiring lawyers who tear their hair out to get into the
most prestigious law school possible — figuring they can just
cruise to a law degree once they get to campus — are making a
mistake. They need to be putting at least as much effort into excelling once
they are in school. If students at Harvard don't work hard, their
professional stars may be eclipsed by lawyers with similar entering
credentials who attended lesser law schools and made better grades.
Again and again, the results are the same, no matter what the area of study:
Attending a highly competitive school is a good thing. But so is getting
good grades. Indeed, getting good grades is somewhat more important than
attending a prestigious school. A public policy that ensures that African-
American and Hispanic students will disproportionately attend schools where
their grades are likely to be worse than their classmates' thus works to the
minority students' disadvantage.
THE SHAPE OF MISINFORMATION
To be sure, those who wish to ignore the mismatch literature have been given
a convenient excuse to do so: the influential 1998 book defending
affirmative action, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions, written by Bowen and
Bok. Their book calculated that even black men with combined SAT scores of
less than 1000 — low for elite schools — who
attend top-tier schools like Princeton out-earn similarly credentialed
students who attend schools like Pennsylvania State.
The book received an astonishing level of attention when it was published.
Fawning editorials appeared in many newspapers. The New York Times announced
that it "flatly refute[d]" the arguments of critics of race-preferential
admissions. Newsweek's Ellis Cose commented that the book was the "most
ambitious study to date of the effects of affirmative action in higher
education" and "an important corrective to conservative propaganda." Some of
the commentary specifically addressed the issue of mismatch: Harvard
University sociologist Nathan Glazer argued in the Washington Post that it
was now "clear" that worries over mismatch were misplaced. The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette editorialized that the notion that race-based admissions
policies have hurt African-American students "is one that can be dismissed."
For many reasons, however, the methodology used in The Shape of the River is
seriously flawed. For example, Bowen and Bok took account only of SAT
scores, overlooking other academic credentials like high-school rank. One
cannot assume that a student at Princeton with a given SAT score is the
equivalent of a student with the same score at Penn State. There is an
excellent chance that the first student has a substantially better high-
school GPA or other distinctions in his favor; that is one reason he is at
Princeton instead of Penn State. Indeed, Ivy League presidents like Bowen
and Bok are constantly making this point themselves: Their schools reject
many applicants with stratospheric SAT scores in favor of applicants they
believe show greater academic promise in other ways.
Even using flawed methodology, however, it is difficult to avoid the
evidence of affirmative action's failure. The Shape of the River's own
figures show that black men with SAT scores between 1000 and 1099 and black
women with SAT scores between 1100 and 1199 are likely to earn more if they
stay away from the most elite schools.
Why might that be? Buried in book's appendices is a more sophisticated
analysis that attempts to explain how various factors influence the
subsequent earnings of black graduates of selective colleges or universities
. Each such factor's effect was measured, including (to a limited extent) a
student's high-school rank and whether his college grades put him at the top
, middle, or bottom third of his class. The authors purport to show that
attending a school like Princeton rather than a school like Penn State adds
to the income of black students. They appear oblivious, however, to the
stunning point made by their own figures, throughout the different
permutations of their analysis: College grades generally contribute more.
Imagine two black males with identical SAT scores, both in the top 10% of
their high-school classes, and both from middle-class families. Only their
colleges are different. Bowen and Bok convincingly demonstrate that if the
two have the same college major and similar grades, the one who attends
Princeton will earn considerably more than the one who attends Penn State.
But what if they don't have similar grades? By the authors' own calculations
, it is better to be a black male at Penn State in the top third of the
class than in the bottom third at Princeton. The increased earnings the Penn
State student gets from high grades are worth almost twice the increased
earnings from attending Princeton. And the boost in earnings he would get
from majoring in natural science rather than the humanities — a
more achievable goal at Penn State — is a whopping $49,537 per
year.
If one's class rank and major were unrelated to the selectivity level of one
's college, then it would be perfectly sensible for the authors to celebrate
the finding that, all other things being equal, black males get an earnings
boost from attending Princeton rather than Penn State. But they are not
unrelated. For students who would not have been admitted but for racial
preferences, the chances of being in the top third of the class are remote.
The only question is whether a student who attends Princeton and winds up in
the bottom third of the class would likely have been in the top third of
Penn State. And the answer to that question, at least in many cases, is yes.
Consider, for example, a black male with combined math and verbal SAT
scores of 1300 (out of a possible 1600) who just missed being in the top 10%
of his high-school class. If he attends Penn State, his SAT scores will put
him exactly at the 75th percentile in the 2011 entering class (using
figures from U.S. News & World Report). That would give him an excellent
shot at earning grades in the top third of his class, or graduating with a
natural-science degree, or both. If this student instead enrolls at
Princeton, however, his SAT scores will put him 110 points below the 25th
percentile for that school, likely making his academic standing very tenuous
. If he wants to maximize his earnings upon graduation, the choice is
obvious.
How could Bowen and Bok have missed the import of their own research? The
answer may lie partly in the fact that the book was rushed to press in 1998
just two months before Election Day. On the ballot that year was Washington
State's Initiative 200, a clone of California's Proposition 209, which
prohibited race-preferential admissions policies in state colleges and
universities. Supporters of race-preferential admissions hoped that The
Shape of the River would change voters' minds about the desirability of such
prohibitions.
Initiative 200 passed anyway, but The Shape of the River slowed the momentum
of state popular initiatives in this area. Perhaps more important, The
Shape of the River was cited by and seems to have heavily influenced Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor in her opinion for the majority in Grutter. The book
and its influence thus point to the troubling implications of using social-
science research in constitutional analysis, particularly on the subject of
race.
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION
Brown v. Board of Education may be the most important Supreme Court decision
in the area of race in the past century. In arriving at its conclusion in
1954 that "separate but equal" school systems are inherently unequal, the
Court relied in part on the now-famous doll experiments of Kenneth and Mamie
Clark, intended to test the self-perception of young African-American
children brought up in the Jim Crow South. The Clarks showed the children
two dolls that were identical except for skin and hair color: One doll
represented a blonde white person and the other a black person. When asked
which of the two dolls was the nice one, which looked bad, which was the
more attractive color, and which was more appealing to play with, the
African-American children showed a consistent preference for the white doll.
Constitutional scholars look back at the doll experiments and ask, "What if
the children had preferred the black doll?" What if it turned out that the
children's preference for the white doll had nothing to do with low self-
esteem caused by Jim Crow segregation? Would that have made the case for
Brown v. Board of Education weaker? Should the constitutional right to equal
protection turn on the latest social-science research?
The answer to these latter questions should be, "Of course not." The
Constitution demands equal protection for all persons regardless of whether
they can demonstrate through social-science research that they have been
harmed by some law or policy or social practice. The Clarks' doll
experiments were certainly interesting; given the uncertainties of
litigation, the attorneys for the Brown plaintiffs were wise to bring them
to the attention of the Court. But the Court probably should not have given
the impression that its constitutional analysis might be shaped by the
results of such an experiment.
If Brown should not have relied on the doll experiments, does that mean the
Court should not take social-science research into account in rendering
decisions in litigation over race-preferential admissions policies? Some
have suggested as much, arguing that the research showing the harm done by
race-preferential admissions should be off-limits.
As it happens, though, the Court has already taken social-science research
into account — and in Grutter, it almost certainly took bad
social-science research into account. In concluding that race-preferential
admissions policies were beneficial to minority students, and that the Court
should therefore make an exception to the otherwise overwhelming
presumption against racially discriminatory laws and policies, Justice O'
Connor's citation to The Shape of the River was explicit. But even without
such a citation, it is clear that the Court's decision was premised on a
belief that race-preferential admissions were helping, or at least not
hurting, African-American and Hispanic students.
Of course, under Grutter, increased campus diversity was said to benefit all
students, not just under-represented minorities. Consequently, racial
discrimination to obtain that benefit was deemed permissible. But minority
students are not public utilities; their futures should not be sacrificed to
serve broader goals of social engineering. And it is difficult to imagine a
college or university knowingly employing race-preferential admissions to
give white and Asian students an advantage at the expense of African-
American and Hispanic students. The Grutter decision thus would have been
unthinkable in the absence of a strong conviction by the Court that
affirmative action was providing minority students with a substantial
advantage, not a disadvantage.
Now it is becoming evident that it was all a mistake. The strong
constitutional presumption against race discrimination in all its forms,
which must be firm and unchanging to be effective, was laid aside for no
good reason.
To compare this to Brown and the doll experiments, one would have to imagine
that Brown had come out the other way — in favor of racially
segregated schools — because the Court had some reason to
believe that Jim Crow was benefiting all students. If later, more
sophisticated research had exposed that belief as erroneous, it would be
incumbent upon the Supreme Court to return to the principle that race
discrimination should not be tolerated.
It remains to be seen what the Court will do in Fisher. It seems unlikely
that its decision will cite or discuss the mismatch literature, and that is
as it should be. But that does not mean that this body of research will not,
or should not, affect the Court's thinking. The mismatch literature is
showing Grutter to be a well-meaning but ultimately misguided deviation from
what otherwise had become accepted principle — that race
discrimination should not be tolerated. Perhaps in the future, the Court
will not be so flexible with its principles.
Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a
member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Click here to view on the Web:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-iron | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 37 Please support Asian American students to fight against racism and race-
based affirmative action in college and university admissions!
Historical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale, as well as many public universities, including Univ. of
Texas, Univ. of Michigan.
Please visit and like http://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 38 个白人的观点说的也有道理：人家如果象亚裔那样学， 一点不输亚裔。 我一时想不出
来如何反驳。
分数上的差异代表不了智力， 最优秀的亚裔孩子，白人孩子， 别的有色人种孩子，
很难说谁比谁成功。 | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 39 Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
) without solid evidence or proof?
Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
Big mouth with little or no substance.
show
of
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Please support Asian American students to fight against racism and race-
: based affirmative action in college and university admissions!
: Historical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
: that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
: institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
: Princeton, and Yale, as well as many public universities, including Univ. of
: Texas, Univ. of Michigan.
: Please visit and like http://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 40 hey, Einstein, before you open your big mouth, did you bother to look at the
evidence collected at the website?
For instance, this article? - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
i sincerely hope that you do your homework and know what you are talking
about before accusing me.
applicants
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
: ) without solid evidence or proof?
: Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
: Big mouth with little or no substance.
:
: show
: of
| | | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 41 If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
fake names.
Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
wrong.
the
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: hey, Einstein, before you open your big mouth, did you bother to look at the
: evidence collected at the website?
: For instance, this article? - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: i sincerely hope that you do your homework and know what you are talking
: about before accusing me.
:
: applicants
| W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 42 贼用贼的法律处理贼做的事， 当然是合法的。盲录他们敢吗？
两百年前白男人上了黑女人， 黑女人要被处死也是合法的。
亚裔自身有诸多问题， 亚裔自己看不到。我也不赞成亚裔主导藤校。一个个的自私书
呆子出来对社会到底有多大用？
prove
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
: to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
: fake names.
: Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
: million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
: wrong.
:
: the
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 43 Remember the Li Jian case back in 2007? There were also many complaints
filed against these schools, the latest being an Indian student.
Dude, so what do you believe, do you believe there is no discrimination or
do you believe there is but Asians are not raising their voice.
What does it have anything to do with me? I am forwarding a link. you are
barking at the wrong true.
prove
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If you have solid evidence, sue the schools using your real name. No need
: to collect what ever support for whatever purpose you have using whatever
: fake names.
: Damages paid in a discrimination case could reach tens or hundreds of
: million$! Let alone changes in whatever "documented" policies you can prove
: wrong.
:
: the
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 44 What you said does make sense to me. Asians have many personality,
character issues. no doubt....trust me, i know this too well (like this 北大
学子 here). but the allegation of discrimination is still valid. In fact,
many people other than Asians reported and documented. check out the website
https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAA
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 贼用贼的法律处理贼做的事， 当然是合法的。盲录他们敢吗？
: 两百年前白男人上了黑女人， 黑女人要被处死也是合法的。
: 亚裔自身有诸多问题， 亚裔自己看不到。我也不赞成亚裔主导藤校。一个个的自私书
: 呆子出来对社会到底有多大用？
:
: prove
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 45 What were the results of those two lawsuits?
Both were withdrawn, weren't they?
Using statistical data of SAT scores ALONE to prove discrimination in the
admission process is misguided. It is not an apple to apple comparison and
it does not answer the critical question: Do we need diversity in the
university?
wrong TREE, not wrong TRUE.
are
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Remember the Li Jian case back in 2007? There were also many complaints
: filed against these schools, the latest being an Indian student.
: Dude, so what do you believe, do you believe there is no discrimination or
: do you believe there is but Asians are not raising their voice.
: What does it have anything to do with me? I am forwarding a link. you are
: barking at the wrong true.
:
: prove
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 46 This is not your lab experiments, Einstein, where scientific tests can be
carried out so easily. Just like any discrimination case, it's hard to win
but you know it's there. Most of these cases are settled outside court. Li
Jian eventually got in Harvard. You can't say the case didn't help him but
he got what he deserved.
The diversity question is very much misguided in the debate. Racial
disparity will always be part of human history, like hatred, selfishness,
prejudice, discrimination, poverty, hunger, war. We don't live in a Utopia
and these things will exist. But that is not what we are arguing. We are
saying racial preference given to one group or groups over other groups in
this day and age is hurting the racial equality more than it's intended to
help.
Race-based affirmative action has its limitations. When it was devised 50-
60 years ago, it was intended for a temporary solution. Even Martin Luther
King, Jr. recognized its limitation and said that the fundamental divide in
American society is not between black and white, but between rich and poor,
and it is more sensible to build on their political philosophy to propose
that affirmative action be based on class, not race.......It is wrong to
assure racial preference affirmative action will have to be there forever as
long as there is discrimination. The question to ask is if the critical
mass is reach when majority people judge a person beyond race and skin color
. I believe the time is arrived. If majority of the people in this country
still consider race is more important that character, value, and capability
, then President Obama won’t be elected and reelected again. The world we
are living in now is vastly different from the world when MLK started the
civil rights movement when blacks and whites can’t even go to the same
school and share the same bus.
At the same time, many proponents of race-based affirmative action ignore
the limitation of the tool. It is a form of discrimination (in UK, it is
called "positive discrimination") and now it has moved inexorably away from
its original commitment to remedy past discrimination and instead has become
a means to achieve racial diversity, even if that means giving preference
to upper-middle-class blacks over poor whites. Such perverse outcomes have
undermined the moral legitimacy of affirmative action, which is supposed to
benefit the truly disadvantaged, not the well-to-do. Do you agree that if
Bill Cosby's kids are given preferences in college admissions and employment
opportunities while white coal miner's kids are shut out, then something
has gone very wrong? In the AAAAA, there are many articles and essays
covering the dark side of affirmative action. Now Asian American students
are held at a higher standard than Black, Hispanic, and White. Many
colleges have hidden quotas for Asian students and essentially Asians are
competing against themselves. This is fundamentally against American values
and therefore it is wrong and indefensible.
A sensible approach would be to use socioeconomic status and income to
bridge the gaps. We must move beyond race to achieve the goal that all
races are truly equal. Two wrongs don’t give a right and we must recognize
that.
I encourage you read more on this issue by visiting AAAAA Facebook page.
and
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: What were the results of those two lawsuits?
: Both were withdrawn, weren't they?
: Using statistical data of SAT scores ALONE to prove discrimination in the
: admission process is misguided. It is not an apple to apple comparison and
: it does not answer the critical question: Do we need diversity in the
: university?
: wrong TREE, not wrong TRUE.
:
: are
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 47 If Li Jian said HIMSELF that his lawsuit helped him get into Harvard, I may
believe. Anyone else? Fat chance. Second, what were you implying when you
said "you can't say the case didn't help him"? You meant he intimidated
Harvard?? Or what? Third, which one is better in terms of fairness to Asian
applicants, Harvard or Princeton, according to the Li Jian case? What is Mr.
Li doing these days after graduating from Harvard?
I trust data when obtained the correct way and analyzed under the correct
light. Although you admit that you cannot prove the existence of
discrimination, you and your friends still claimed in your message that "[h]
istorical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
that the discrimination against Asian American students is systematic and
institutionalized in most Ivy League universities, including Harvard,
Princeton, and Yale." Isn't it a lie?
Li
but
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: This is not your lab experiments, Einstein, where scientific tests can be
: carried out so easily. Just like any discrimination case, it's hard to win
: but you know it's there. Most of these cases are settled outside court. Li
: Jian eventually got in Harvard. You can't say the case didn't help him but
: he got what he deserved.
: The diversity question is very much misguided in the debate. Racial
: disparity will always be part of human history, like hatred, selfishness,
: prejudice, discrimination, poverty, hunger, war. We don't live in a Utopia
: and these things will exist. But that is not what we are arguing. We are
: saying racial preference given to one group or groups over other groups in
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 48 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
占便宜可就不那么明显了。 | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 49 Dude, can you read english? What I said was it is hard to prove on
individual basis but never said it can't be done. Like any other
discrimination case, such as workplace discrimination and sexual harassment,
it's always hard to prove but these discriminations do exist. don't twist
the logic to prove your point which is invalid. In Li Jian's case, he did
have several strong evidences on his side. If he isn't qualified, can you
explain why Harvard reversed the course and admitted him?
You don't even know what the hell you are talking about. Look at the
statistics. It is more evident looking at data at aggregate level over the
course of two decades.
America’s elite Ivy League universities clearly follow a de facto Asian-
American admissions quota policy according to “The Myth of American
Meritocracy”by Ron Unz. Unz provides detailed statistical evidence that the
pattern of Asian-American enrollment over the last two decades is
remarkably similar to what followed the establishment of Ivy League Jewish
quotas in the mid-1920s. Soon after the U.S. Department of Justice closed
its early 1990s investigation into allegations of anti-Asian admissions bias
at the Ivy League:
•Asian-American numbers at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia began large
declines.
•Asian-American enrollments throughout the Ivy League strangely
converged to very similar levels.
•The college-age population of Asian-Americans doubled during 1993-
2011 as did their top academic awards, but none of this was reflected in
their Ivy League enrollments.
•As one example, the percentage of college-age Asian-Americans at
Harvard dropped by more than 50% during 1993-2011, a larger decline than
that suffered by Jews following the 1925 establishment of ethnic quotas.
•Meanwhile, race-neutral Caltech saw its Asian-American enrollment
increase closely in line with the growth of the college-age Asian-American
population.
•Comparing the Ivy League enrollments of Asian-Americans with those of
high-performing white subpopulations rules out general “diversity”factors
as an explanation for these patterns.
Whatelse do you need? You may be from beida but you clearly lack logical and
critical thinking skills. One more evidence of how Chinese education system
is failing kids.
may
Asian
Mr.
h]
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: If Li Jian said HIMSELF that his lawsuit helped him get into Harvard, I may
: believe. Anyone else? Fat chance. Second, what were you implying when you
: said "you can't say the case didn't help him"? You meant he intimidated
: Harvard?? Or what? Third, which one is better in terms of fairness to Asian
: applicants, Harvard or Princeton, according to the Li Jian case? What is Mr.
: Li doing these days after graduating from Harvard?
: I trust data when obtained the correct way and analyzed under the correct
: light. Although you admit that you cannot prove the existence of
: discrimination, you and your friends still claimed in your message that "[h]
: istorical college admission data and comparative statistical analyses show
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 50 Then Harvard did not discriminate against Mr. Li, according to your logic.
Why did you still list Harvard as one of the "discriminating" schools?
Second, is it normal that one applicant may be rejected by one school when
he or she is admitted by another school?
Did the numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic (especially) rise every year??
Why didn't the graph show the numbers of the other ethnic groups together
with the Asian youth? Draw those lines, and you will see different things.
Another way to draw the graph may be to draw the percentage of donations
made to Ivy schools by each ethinic group.
Number vs. percentage is a key concept in flaws in logical thinking.
Another way to see the flaw in the reasoning: according to the graph, if the
Asian population reaches 5 times of its population in 1991, all Ivy League
schools SHOULD admit Asian students ONLY in order to be cleared of the
potential discrimination charge!
Finally, bashing me adds neither strength nor credibility to your argument.
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument, is a known
fallacy. | | | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 51 Beida, like i said, after 2-3 posts, it's evident that you are the biggest
SB on this board. So i just excuse your poor logic and English writing
skill. GO back to school, kid. You don't deserve to get any of my
attention now. F U.
??
together
the
League
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Did the numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic (especially) rise every year??
: Why did not the graph show the numbers of the other ethnic groups together
: with the Asian youth? Draw those lines, and you will see different things.
: Another way to draw the graph may be to draw the percentage of donations
: made to Ivy schools by each ethinic group.
: Numbers and percentages is the key concept in flaws in logical thinking.
: Another way to see the flaw in the reasoning: according to the graph, if the
: Asian population reaches 5 times of its population in 1991, all Ivy League
: schools SHOULD admit Asian students ONLY in order to be cleared of the
: potential discrimination charge!
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 52 Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Beida, like i said, after 2-3 posts, it's evident that you are the biggest
: SB on this board. So i just excuse your poor logic and English writing
: skill. GO back to school, kid. You don't deserve to get any of my
: attention now. F U.
:
: ??
: together
: the
: League
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 53 Thats right. Because so far you have NOT presented any real arguments. I
took my time to write long well reasoned posts.
Let others be the judge regarding who has better arguments. But, i am done
with wasting my time with you, SB. | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 54 You still did not answer my question about the number vs. percentage problem
regarding the graph you presented. That is a typical fallacy.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Thats right. Because so far you have NOT presented any real arguments. I
: took my time to write long well reasoned posts.
: Let others be the judge regarding who has better arguments. But, i am done
: with wasting my time with you, SB.
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 55 Beida, read the damn article. Link is below. Ron has answered it, idiot. if
you can read and understand english.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-ame
problem
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: You still did not answer my question about the number vs. percentage problem
: regarding the graph you presented. That is a typical fallacy.
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 56 Where and where??
Population is a number. Admitted student percentage is a percentage. The
article you cited made the number v. percentage mistake. And you are fooled.
if
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Beida, read the damn article. Link is below. Ron has answered it, idiot. if
: you can read and understand english.
: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-ame
:
: problem
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 57 Told you, moron, you can't read english.
fooled.
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Where and where??
: Population is a number. Admitted student percentage is a percentage. The
: article you cited made the number v. percentage mistake. And you are fooled.
:
: if
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 58 Name calling?? That's your best subject?
Where is the answer to the number vs. percentage problem? The truth is that
the graph was misleading. Statistical data can be manipulated to suit
different purposes. Using number and percentage mis-match is one of the
tricks a writer can use to fool readers.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Told you, moron, you can't read english.
:
: fooled.
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 59 Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
, none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
you. SB. | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 60 On the contrary, it shows that you did not use your own brain to think.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument,
appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is
claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
far
except
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
: , none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
: you. SB.
| | | n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 61 你咋不说有个黄仆人，为了孩子上个好学校，不敢买房子，四处搬家。这个黄仆人唯独
听不进别人说自己的白主子不好，因为黑仆人厉害，白主子表面上要安抚一下，就用黄
仆人的利益来贴补黑人。这个黄仆人为了白主子能看上自己家娃，拼命被白主子较好，
自己人牺牲再多都没有问题，只要没有牺牲到他家孩子就行。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
: 或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
: 当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
: 。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
: 了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
: 又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
: 分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
: 被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
: 便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
: 占便宜可就不那么明显了。
| k******e
发帖数: 8870 | 62 u hit the nail on the head.
【在 n********h 的大作中提到】
: 你咋不说有个黄仆人，为了孩子上个好学校，不敢买房子，四处搬家。这个黄仆人唯独
: 听不进别人说自己的白主子不好，因为黑仆人厉害，白主子表面上要安抚一下，就用黄
: 仆人的利益来贴补黑人。这个黄仆人为了白主子能看上自己家娃，拼命被白主子较好，
: 自己人牺牲再多都没有问题，只要没有牺牲到他家孩子就行。
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 63 那个图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚
裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧
视了。
反驳：
1）白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能也增加很快，
，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些族裔的学生在绝
大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他们也被歧视了？
2）如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例，应该和亚裔
18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚裔 18 岁到 21
岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚裔才可能避免
种族歧视的标签。
3）仅从华裔人口增加的细节来看，众所周知，大陆来的小留学生数目在 1991 到 2011
爆增。从台湾来的也不会减少。而这些群体刚好部分解释了为什么亚裔 18 岁到 21
岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多。请问，这些人都是聪明绝顶的该上长春藤学校的
学生吗？相反，很多从大陆来的小留学生，在大陆根本考不上大学！
因此，该图混淆数目和百分比的关系，误导读者，犯了逻辑错误。该文作者不了解亚裔
年龄段人数增长的原因，忽视了其它可以解释统计数字的原因，同样是逻辑错误。
下图图标左边是学生的百分比；右边是亚裔适龄人数。典型的曲解数据。
另一个人数百分比图： | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 64 If you read the comments, you would find the following "noise":
1)Jewess says:
December 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses
last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage) of NMS semifinalists
? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and
graduated from an ivy league university. His mother is Jewish; his father is
not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author’s
methods he would have been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of
interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even “IQ” argument? Anecdotally,
my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his ivy league were at
least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use
last names (in lieu of actual demographic data) to make the conclusion that
Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified
Asians is irresponsible.
2) Recent Graduate says:
December 25, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS,
individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect ACT score, National
AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and
Asian – had similar backgrounds and were eminently qualified for Ivy. None
of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr
, the cost is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered
anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were unable/
unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied
to as many Ivies as they could because it was understood that (a) their
parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large
debt load in order to do it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my
own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than we tend to think.
3) chris rowe says:
December 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I’ve been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian
city), and I feel that at least some of Asians’ over-representation in SAT
scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and
money into driving their children’s success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to
attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order to increase their
scores. For example, the few students I’ve ever had preparing for the PSAT
— most students prepare only for the SAT — were all Asian.
Naturally, because it’s so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to
be a practice test, I asked these parents why their 9th or 10th grade child
was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the
PSAT because of its use in the NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send
their children to “cram school” every day after regular school lets out (
and I myself have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially
having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round from
early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the
resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball players who
use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the “merit” in “meritocracy” need not be based
solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore a race-based quota
system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the
attendance rate of hard-driving test-preppers. Maybe the university didn’t
want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they’
re holed up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to
be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz’s piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college — when the
Asian parents’ academic influence over their children is absolute —
whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what
their students do during and after college. Is the kid who went to cram
school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue
practicing his four instruments once his mom isn’t forcing him to take
lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university?
Or did he just peak early because his parents were working him so hard in
order to get him into that college?
4) Michael M says:
December 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Three points:
1. The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for
success. At one point he notes, “Given that Asians accounted for just 1.5
percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished
immigrant families. . .” When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there
were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics,
scientists and businesspeople who came from educated families in China,
Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational values
and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from
Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities, whose parents were usually
working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage
to the first, who were able to claim “diversity” without really having to
suffer for it.
I would expect you’d see the same difference among higher-caste educated
South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and lower castes or from places
like Guyana.
2. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category
as “Asian.” They have different cultural traditions and immigration
histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they’ll answer “
Caucasian.” Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might
be different undermines the credibility of the author.
3. The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for
whites, but that whites are losing against Asians. The percentage of
Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if
invisible quotas for Asians are lifted, there will be far fewer white
students at these schools. This isn’t because of any conspiracy, but
because white students are scoring lower than the competition on the
relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this
publication titled, “Why White Students Are Deficient.” How about some
more writing about “The White Student Achievement Gap?”
His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
, none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
you. SB.
【在 y*****y 的大作中提到】
: Again, moron. Read Ron's article - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
: His case is strong enough that among ALL the hundreds comments i read so far
: , none could attack his statistics (not that nobody wants to do it), except
: you. SB.
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 65 你这李双双光腚拉磨，就是不提分数这个最客观的标准下亚裔娃的惩罚性handicap。你
这马楠的婊弟还是回家慢慢涂鞋油去吧。
裔
21
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 那个图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚
: 裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧
: 视了。
: 反驳：
: 1）白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能也增加很快，
: ，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些族裔的学生在绝
: 大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他们也被歧视了？
: 2）如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例，应该和亚裔
: 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚裔 18 岁到 21
: 岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚裔才可能避免
| N*****m
发帖数: 42603 | 66 这个烂人不是说从父母版滚蛋了的么？咋又回来了。
applicants
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
: ) without solid evidence or proof?
: Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
: Big mouth with little or no substance.
:
: show
: of
| b**o
发帖数: 5769 | 67 不如来点实际的，建立一个基金会，发奖学金给优秀的华裔学生呢。
我就从来没有看过专门给华裔的奖学金可以申请的。 | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 68 客观？你一个亚裔，如果是学数理化或生物或经济或计算机的本科，周围是亚裔多还是
黑人或西班牙裔多？你知道黑人或西班牙裔大多学文科，而亚裔大都学理科吗？如果藤
校招你去读非洲历史，你去吗？
拿中国高考来说，热门专业（比如英语）的平均分肯定远远高于冷门专业（比如拉丁语
）的平均分。没有这些信息，你能＂客观＂地解释分数差异？
至少从这种不同科目的生源分布和相应平均分来讲，亚裔如果想挤进＂抢手＂的专业，
必须把自己的 SAT 提到高得不能再高，以便把其他的竞争对手挤下去。就和炒学区房
一样！圣地亚哥的犹太地产开发商，背后不知道怎么笑话亚裔买主呢！
再者，特招运动员里面华人多还是其它有色人多？他们的平均分是多少呀？
亚裔其实就是在和亚裔竞争，无论是买学区房还是爬藤。那些以为挤掉黑人就可以增加
亚裔竞争优势的同学们，还是更＂客观＂地看待一下 AA 制吧。真正剥夺亚裔入学资格
的是白人，有钱有势的白人。
比如某年，因为＂legacy admission＂资格而被 UVA 提前录取 （Early Decison）的
学生中，白人和亚裔的比例是：91:5 。当然冷热门专业的分布也会有些影响。但那十
几倍的差距，不能低估。
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: 你这李双双光腚拉磨，就是不提分数这个最客观的标准下亚裔娃的惩罚性handicap。你
: 这马楠的婊弟还是回家慢慢涂鞋油去吧。
:
: 裔
: 21
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 69 这是本好书。讲的是一个文盲妈妈的穷孩子如何成为著名的神经外科医生的故事。
There was a movie with the same title: | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 70 扁豆写的书评如下：
Title: Metamorphosis
Early on in his life, Benjamin Carson realized that he would have to work
harder than anyone else to be truly accepted. In his autobiography Gifted
Hands, Carson documents his brilliant transformation from an unmotivated
ghetto boy to a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, detailing specific
experiences and beliefs that impacted his life. His story, though remarkable
, is written in such a way that it is both relatable and interesting,
utilizing down-to-earth language and humorous anecdotes sprinkled throughout
. Teeming with scientific knowledge and interesting views on the education
system, Gifted Hands gives one an entirely different experience for
schooling. Living life during a time of racial disparity, Carson’s story is
one of remarkable achievement and hope.
In the book, Carson particularly focuses on experiences that improved him or
taught him a lesson. For example, one chapter was entirely about Carson’s
anger management problems in his teenage years, showing how close he came to
fudging up his entire career path. Another gave deference to books, with
detailed passages of Carson poring over them in (successful) attempts to
expand his general knowledge. The importance of hard work comes up multiple
times throughout the book. Dr. Carson truly believes that without his strong
work ethic, composed of long nights studying or reading, he would never
have risen as high in his field. His close ties to family and friends also
give him strength along the way, helping Carson trust his own judgment.
Overall, Carson comes out as a man who is a culmination of his experiences,
and has obviously done his best with the hand he was dealt.
Implied, however, is the idea that sometimes, the choice made is out of one
’s hands. In interviews, Carson insinuates that the decision to hire him
was partially based on his expansive knowledge of classical music. As he is
a surgeon, such a trait is both non-relevant and superfluous, not to mention
rare. However, because he knew in detail about this particular topic,
Carson got the job. In essence, a stroke of luck, both that his interviewer
had a liking for classical music, and that Carson shared it. While such
knowledge takes time and effort to build up, it is incongruous to the skills
neurosurgeons are supposed to have. There were also life-changing decisions
primarily based on trivial things. For example, Carson applied to Yale
based on the fact that they had, according to his memory, wiped out the
opposing team on a TV show called College Bowl. While not a pleasant thought
, Carson’s life seems to be based upon a multitude of fortunate occurrences.
The innovation and steadfast determination that Carson shows throughout his
life makes him a role-model for youth all over the world today, which is
indeed part of his goal. Already, he and his wife Candy have set up the
Carson Scholar Funds, and its website shows it has already set up two
programs. One, Carson Scholarships, gives $1000 scholarship funds for
students who have excellent records of community service and academic
standing, and aims to have one “Carson Scholar” in every school within the
US. As Carson is a great fan of books, the second program is the Ben Carson
Reading Project, which allows schools enough monetary support to build Ben
Carson Reading Rooms for children to pursue independent reading (The
Official). With the immense efforts they have made, the Carsons’ dedication
to giving students a higher level of education shines through.
Gifted Hands appeals to all senses with its vivid imagery and tasteful
descriptions. Phrases like “the smoke from his pipe lent a sweet fragrance
to the room” lend one a distinct odor to characterize the setting with, and
bring a familiarity to the story. Melancholy tones in passages such as
where Carson has to report a failed surgery are received loud and clear. “
‘I’m sorry-I said, and that’s as far as I got. For the first time in my
adult life I began crying in public” is heartbreaking, and the reader can
reach out to both Carson and the family of the deceased. However, the
phrases that caught me up the most had to do with sight, as Carson takes
care to put as much detail into stories as possible. For example, “armies
of roaches streaked across the room, impossible to get rid of” clearly
bring to mind times when insects roamed one’s house and extermination was
high on the to-do list.
One of the most moving parts of Gifted Hands was the range of
hemispherectomies Carson preformed and their aftermaths. Whole sections of
the book are devoted to describing the positive outcomes for patients whom
were performed on: how their seizures stopped or lessened, and how they
began having a normal life afterwards. A hemispherectomy is a surgical
removal of at least part of one hemisphere of the brain, and was at first
thought too dangerous to perform on patients, no matter the area removed.
However, as a young man Dr. Carson reinvented the process and
hemispherectomies are now what John Hopkins’ is known for. According to the
University of Pittsburgh’s neurosurgery department, there are two forms of
a hemispherectomy. The first, functional hemispherectomies, remove parts of
the hemisphere and sever the corpus callosum. Anatomical hemispherectomies,
on the other hand, remove the entire hemisphere (Pittsburgh).
While surgeons at John Hopkins are known to perform the latter, as the
magazine Scientific American notes, anatomical hemispherectomies bleed more
and thus have higher chances of placing a patient in critical condition.
However, they also decrease the risk of disease relapse, and so are usually
only performed once on a patient (Choi). A study of John Hopkins’
hemispherectomy patients in Science Daily also confided that while patients
with severe seizures before had little to none now, they also are partially
paralyzed on the side opposed the removed hemisphere, and lose vision on
that side as well. Though, because children’s brains have a sense of “
plasticity”, they are able to adjust so that the effects are close to null;
corresponding parts on the remaining hemisphere do the same job as if there
were two. The younger the child, the more complete the takeover (Study).
One of the more understated topics of Carson’s life is the influence of
religion upon him. Intertwined into most of his stories, the sense that God
is guiding him and helping him correct his wrongs is felt throughout the
book. For example, when Carson went on a rampage and moved towards one of
his friends with a knife, the blade only hit a belt buckle. Had the stab
connected, his friend would have been severely injured, and Carson’s future
would be ruined. After the event, Carson was so afraid for himself that he
prayed to God furiously in hopes of redemption, and came out a “changed man
”, able to ignore jibes and deliberate attempts to rouse anger from him. A
devout Seventh-day Adventist, Carson believes in the Creationist Theory,
reasoning that it gives more stock to being moral and ethically good. Such
view is obviously controversial in scientific fields, and Emory University’
s faculty and students have gone as far as writing a letter in protest of
Carson voicing his views (Strauss). However, Carson’s embracement of both
science and faith shows that, though the gap between the two ideals is large
, they are still connected.
Benjamin Carson’s life is one of those rags-to-riches stories more expected
in fairy tales, with twists and obstacles to overcome and resulting in fame
and fortune. He set out to make a difference in the world, and ended up
with a legacy far larger than he ever dreamed of. By keeping his moral
compass and utilizing his natural talents, Carson became a famous
neurosurgeon and amassed enough money to give back to his community. Dr.
Carson is a role-model for all, with his perseverance and values giving him
strength to succeed. | | | W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 71 不得不绝望地说， 想和白人斗，把亚洲那２６亿都拉来也不是对手。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 客观？你一个亚裔，如果是学数理化或生物或经济或计算机的本科，周围是亚裔多还是
: 黑人或西班牙裔多？你知道黑人或西班牙裔大多学文科，而亚裔大都学理科吗？如果藤
: 校招你去读非洲历史，你去吗？
: 拿中国高考来说，热门专业（比如英语）的平均分肯定远远高于冷门专业（比如拉丁语
: ）的平均分。没有这些信息，你能＂客观＂地解释分数差异？
: 至少从这种不同科目的生源分布和相应平均分来讲，亚裔如果想挤进＂抢手＂的专业，
: 必须把自己的 SAT 提到高得不能再高，以便把其他的竞争对手挤下去。就和炒学区房
: 一样！圣地亚哥的犹太地产开发商，背后不知道怎么笑话亚裔买主呢！
: 再者，特招运动员里面华人多还是其它有色人多？他们的平均分是多少呀？
: 亚裔其实就是在和亚裔竞争，无论是买学区房还是爬藤。那些以为挤掉黑人就可以增加
| y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 72 Beida, i know you are hopeless. but again, here is one article by law
professor Heriot on the damaging side of affirmative action in college
admission. read it, moron.......
The Say Irony of Affirmative Action by Prof Gail Heriot
In 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's law school
could substantially relax its admissions standards in order to admit a "
critical mass" of African-American and Hispanic students. Many observers
interpreted that decision — Grutter v. Bollinger — as an
open-ended embrace of affirmative action.
The University of Texas was among the many universities emboldened to ramp
up its use of race-preferential admissions policies. In 2003, the university
already had in place an admissions policy designed to raise the number of
under-represented minority students attending its flagship campus in Austin
by admitting the "top 10%" of the graduates of each Texas high school
without regard to SAT scores. Soon after the Grutter decision, however, the
university announced that it was still dissatisfied with the diversity of
the student body at Austin, 21% of which was composed of under-represented
minorities (16.9% Hispanic and 4.5% African-American), and that the school
would be implementing race preferences to boost that diversity. Under the
new policy, the proportion of the student body composed of Hispanics and
African-Americans rose to 25%.
The result was a lawsuit. The plaintiff — Abigail Fisher
— is a young woman from Texas whose academic credentials were good,
but not quite up to the standards that whites and Asians must meet in order
to gain admission. They were, however, above those necessary for African-
American and Hispanic students. Fisher, who is white, was rejected, and
wound up attending the less prestigious and (for out-of-state students) more
expensive Louisiana State University. Her case — Fisher v.
University of Texas — was argued before the Supreme Court in October.
It will be decided sometime in the coming months.
The Court may decide Fisher on narrow grounds. There are several dimensions
along which the University of Texas's race-preferential admissions policies
are more aggressive than those in Grutter. For example, Grutter permitted
Michigan to use racially preferential admissions policies to admit a "
critical mass" of African-Americans and Hispanics to its overall student
body. Texas, however, takes the position that it needs "critical mass" not
just in its student body as a whole, but in each classroom, program, and
major. Under the "top 10%" policy, Texas had likely already achieved a "
critical mass" of minorities across its student body. Classroom-level "
critical mass," however, requires much more extensive preferences; it could
conceivably justify racial discrimination in course registration and other
more aggressive discriminatory practices.
Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the
opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the
Court's personnel — most notably Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's
replacement with Justice Samuel Alito — as cause for concern.
Since Grutter was a 5-4 decision, it may not take much to swing the Court in
the opposite direction.
The biggest change since Grutter, though, has nothing to do with Court
membership. It is the mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are
doing more harm than good — even for their supposed
beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-
American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using
race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and
lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISMATCH
How could such a miscalculation about the effects of affirmative action
occur? As University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard
Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important,
recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It'
s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of
widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to
enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic
credentials put them toward the bottom of the class. While academically
gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not
enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. When the most prestigious
schools relax their admissions policies in order to admit more minority
students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial
credentials gap at nearly all selective schools.
For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in
connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-
school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the
entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites
were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at
1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd
percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African-American students,
meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile.
This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional-
school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple:
While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some
students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that
their entering credentials suggest.
No serious supporter of race-preferential admissions denies this. In their
highly influential defense of affirmative action, The Shape of the River:
Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions (discussed later in more detail), former Ivy League university
presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok candidly admitted that low college
grades for affirmative-action beneficiaries present a "sobering picture."
This is an understatement: The average African-American first-year law
student has a grade-point average in the bottom 10% of his or her class. And
while undergraduate GPAs for affirmative-action beneficiaries aren't quite
as disappointing, that is in part because, as explained below, affirmative-
action beneficiaries tend to shy away from subjects like science and
engineering, which are graded on a tougher curve than other subjects.
One example that helps illustrate the consequences of mismatch —&#
8197;how lower entering academic credentials depress both academic
performance and grades, and how lower-than-average academic performance and
grades in turn harm professional ambitions — is the field of
academia. In 2003, too late to be cited to the Court in Grutter, Stephen
Cole and Elinor Barber published Increasing Faculty Diversity: The
Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. The authors'
mission was to determine why more members of minority groups are not
attracted to careers in the academy. The authors' conclusions, reached after
extensively questioning 7,612 high-achieving undergraduates at 34 colleges
and universities, pointed to race-preferential admissions as the culprit.
"It is a fact," Cole and Barber wrote, "that in virtually all selective
schools...where racial preferences in admission is practiced, the majority
of African American students end up in the lower quarter of their class."
Lower grades sap the academic self-confidence of African-American students
at elite schools, according to the authors, which in turn causes them to
abandon their freshman interests in academic careers. Their counterparts at
non-elite schools, on the other hand, are more likely to persist and to
ultimately succeed. These counterparts enjoy school, in part because they
correctly perceive that they are good at it, and they want to stay on campus
to pursue careers in academia.
Cole and Barber found that the effect of grades on career ambitions was in
fact substantial. The authors noted that among African-American students
with GPAs at or near 2.6, only about 4% wanted to become college professors.
Among those with GPAs at or near 4.0, however, the number was over 20%.
These findings build on long-established observations about the importance
of grades and perceived achievement. Indeed, as early as 1966, University of
Chicago sociologist James Davis published research demonstrating that a
student who attends a school that is out of his academic league is often put
at a professional disadvantage. In "The Campus as a Frog Pond: An
Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of
College Men," Davis controlled for entering academic credentials and
compared students at schools of different academic rank, examining their
career choices to see which pursued "high performance" careers (in law,
medicine, science, etc.). He found that college GPA correlated more strongly
to career choice than did the academic rank of the school attended. He
explained this finding in terms of the "theory of relative deprivation,"
under which students can be expected to measure their own potential in
comparison to their immediate classmates, generally using one another's
grades as "the accepted yardstick."
Davis put his conclusion in somewhat quaint terms. "Counselors and parents
might well consider the drawbacks as well as the advantages of sending a boy
to a ‘fine' college, if, when doing so, it is fairly certain he will end
up in the bottom ranks of his graduating class," he wrote. Davis's research
spawned a cottage industry in sociological studies on the hazards of being a
"small frog" in a "big pond."
Further support for Cole and Barber's conclusion comes from an unexpected
source: First Lady Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis at Princeton
University, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The
future first lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black
alumni; though the response rate was not overwhelming, the responses of the
89 black alumni who completed the questionnaire gave reason for concern.
Black alumni were asked whether they felt "much more comfortable with Blacks
," "much more comfortable with Whites," or "about equally comfortable with
Blacks and Whites" in various contexts during three different periods in
their lives — before attending Princeton, while students at
Princeton, and after leaving Princeton.
Those who argue that race-preferential admissions foster integration might
be surprised by Obama's findings. In the category of "Intellectual Comfort,"
the number of black alumni who said that they felt "much more comfortable
with Blacks" than with whites in an intellectual setting went up upon
attending Princeton. In their pre-Princeton years, 26% of the respondents
were at greater intellectual ease with fellow blacks than with whites;
during their Princeton years, however, the number climbed to 37%. This sense
of alienation from white students did not appear in other categories of
interaction: For "Sporting Comfort," the change was in the opposite
direction (26% felt more comfortable with fellow blacks prior to Princeton,
compared with 25% who felt more comfortable with fellow blacks while at
Princeton). In the categories of "Dating Comfort" and "Business Comfort,"
the proportions of respondents who felt "much more comfortable with Blacks"
were unchanged.
It is difficult to see how reducing the "Intellectual Comfort" that black
students feel with whites can lead to greater black achievement. Yet this is
just one of the many perverse effects of affirmative action and the
academic mismatch it causes.
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Minority students' lack of interest in academic careers offers one example
of the consequences of mismatch, but the strongest evidence comes from the
fields of science and engineering. Contrary to what many might expect,
college-bound African-American and Hispanic students are just as interested
as white students in majoring in science and engineering. Indeed, empirical
studies show that they tend to be a little more so. But these are difficult
majors that many students abandon. Significantly, African-American and
Hispanic students jump ship at much higher rates than whites.
It is not surprising that students with lower entering academic credentials
give up on their ambitions to get degrees in science and engineering more
often than students with higher academic credentials. What some do find
surprising is this: Three in-depth studies have demonstrated that part of
the effect is relative. An aspiring science or engineering major who attends
a school where his entering academic credentials put him in the middle or
the top of his class is more likely to persevere, and ultimately to succeed,
than an otherwise identical student attending a more elite school where
those same credentials place him nearer to the bottom of his class. Put
differently, a student's chances of success in science or engineering are
increased not only if his entering credentials are high, but also if those
credentials compare favorably with his classmates'.
The earliest of these studies — titled "The Role of Ethnicity
in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions" —&#
8197;was published in 1996 by a team of scholars led by Dartmouth
psychologist Rogers Elliott. It found that the single most important cause
for minority attrition from science at the selective institutions studied
was the "relatively low preparation of black aspirants to science in these
schools." The authors were careful to use the word "relatively." It wasn't
just entering credentials demonstrating highly developed ability at science
that mattered, but comparatively high credentials. A student who attended a
school at which his math SAT score was in the top third of his class was
much more likely to follow through with an ambition to earn a degree in
science or engineering than was a student with the same score who attended a
school at which that score was in the bottom third of the class. The
problem for minority students was that, as a result of affirmative action,
being in the top third of the class was relatively rare.
Elliott and his co-authors cited the extraordinary record of historically
black colleges and universities, which graduate far more than their share of
black engineering and science majors, as further support for their findings
. Unlike at other colleges and universities, credentials gaps are not an
issue at the historically black institutions. As one faculty member at a
historically black school — North Carolina Central University's
Walter Pattillo, Jr. — told Science magazine in 1992: "The way
we see it, the majority schools are wasting large numbers of good students.
They have black students with admissions statistics [that are] very high,
tops. But these students wind up majoring in sociology or recreation or get
wiped out altogether."
A more recent study by University of Virginia psychologists Frederick Smyth
and John McArdle (now at the University of Southern California) confirmed
Elliott's findings. And the effects were not subtle. In "Ethnic and Gender
Differences in Science Graduation at Selective Colleges with Implications
for Admissions Policy and College Choice," Smyth and McArdle found that,
among a sample of under-represented minority students at 23 universities who
intended to major in science, mathematics, or engineering, 45% more of the
women and 35% more of the men would have succeeded in attaining their goals
if they had attended schools where their entering credentials had been about
average.
Another study — this one by Richard Sander, co-author of
Mismatch, and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus — pulled data from
nine University of California campuses. The authors came to a similar
conclusion. "Minority attrition in science is a very real problem," they
wrote, "and the evidence in this paper suggests that ‘negative mismatch'
probably plays a role in it." Their multiple approaches to the data yielded
consistent results: "[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard
deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to
end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students
attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the
mean credentials of their peers."
The evidence that mismatch has hurt African-American and Hispanic students'
chances of having careers in science or engineering was highlighted in a
report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010. The data and
methodology of the research have not been challenged. The researchers'
conclusions have not been rebutted. Nevertheless, the findings have been
ignored by colleges and universities. Indeed, one of the arguments that the
University of Texas makes before the Supreme Court in the Fisher case is
that there are not enough minority students studying science and engineering
to make those classrooms racially diverse. As a result, it claims, greater
race preferences in admissions are needed. But Texas's race-preferential
admissions will likely aggravate rather than alleviate this problem. The
more colleges and universities engage in preferential treatment, the fewer
the African-Americans and Hispanics who will graduate with degrees in
science and engineering.
And the evidence keeps piling up. Recently, Duke University economists Peter
Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and Duke sociologist Ken Spenner found
evidence supporting the mismatch thesis when researching the major choices
of undergraduates enrolled at Duke. In their article in the IZA Journal of
Labor Economics, "What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time
Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice," they found that black
undergraduates were much less likely to persist with an entering goal of
majoring in engineering, the natural sciences, or economics than white
students were. Approximately 54% of black males switched out of these majors
, while only 8% of white males did. Once again, the problem was not lack of
interest in science and engineering among black students: Indeed, before
starting at Duke, more black students than whites indicated an initial
interest in majoring in these subjects. Instead, the differences in
attrition were best explained by entering academic credentials.
These authors also dispelled the common belief that affirmative action
beneficiaries "catch up" after their freshman years with their better-
credentialed fellow students. What happens instead is that many transfer to
majors where the academic competition is less intense and where students are
graded on a more lenient curve. Their GPAs increase, but their standing
relative to their peer groups does not.
This effect is by no means confined to affirmative-action beneficiaries.
White children and grandchildren of alumni who receive legacy preferences
have the same experience, earning lower grades than white non-legacies at
the end of their first year. While the gap narrows over time, it is only
because legacy students, too, shift away from the natural sciences,
engineering, and economics and toward the humanities and social sciences. It
is exceedingly unlikely that anti-legacy bias, lack of legacy role models
on the faculty, or any other argument commonly advanced to explain racial
disparities in science explains the legacies' collective drift toward softer
majors. If it is the wrong explanation for legacies, it is overwhelmingly
likely to be the wrong explanation for under-represented minorities, too.
The study created a firestorm at Duke. Unfortunately, the administration,
instead of taking the research to heart, focused on pacifying indignant
students, alumni, and faculty members who were insulted by the results. In
an open letter to the campus responding to demands that the university
condemn the study, provost Peter Lange and other administrators stated that
they "understand how the conclusions of the research paper can be
interpreted in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes." They assured
students that there are no easy fields of study at Duke and took the
position that, insofar as the mammoth problem identified in the study exists
, it could easily be solved through student counseling and a few tweaks to
the science curriculum.
Evidently, business will remain as usual at Duke. Potential affirmative-
action recruits with an interest in science and engineering will continue to
be told that Duke is the school for them. They will not be told that their
chances of success in their chosen fields would be greater at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Nor will they be told that if they switch
majors to disciplines like African and African-American Studies, Art
History, English, Sociology, and Women's Studies, they are less likely to
enjoy lucrative careers or indeed to get jobs at all. In securities law,
this would qualify as actionable fraud. In higher education, it is
considered forward thinking.
THE MISSING BLACK LAWYERS
The problem of relative performance and credential mismatch does not end
with college graduation. It extends to professional schools as well, and is
particularly evident at America's law schools. Shortly after Cole and Barber
's book was published, Mismatch co-author Richard Sander published a study
of law schools titled "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American
Law Schools." His findings were similar. Outside of historically black
colleges and universities, up and down the law-school hierarchy, the average
African-American student had an academic index — a combination
of GPA and LSAT score — more than two standard deviations
below that of his average white classmate. Indeed, at some law schools,
there was no overlap between the entering credentials of African-American
students and those of white students (Sander did not study Hispanic students
). These gaps in entering credentials affect student performance: Sander's
research demonstrated that more than half of African-American law students
had first-year GPAs in the bottom 10% of their classes. Even critics of
Sander's ultimate conclusions agreed that these findings were both true and
troubling.
Only slightly more controversial was Sander's finding that this effect was
almost entirely the result of affirmative action. When African-American and
white law students with similar entering credentials competed against one
another, they performed very close to the same. Race-based admissions were
thus creating the illusion that African-Americans are somehow destined to be
poor law students. The truth is that, if they were attending schools where
their credentials matched the average student's, they would be just as
likely to do well.
Strangely, however, African-American and white students with identical
entering credentials were not performing similarly on the bar exam. Sander
showed that the likely reason is that they are not attending the same
schools. The African-American students were more likely to be at law schools
that are more theoretical in their approach and where "teaching to the bar
exam" is considered déclassé. Rather than benefiting from the more
competitive learning environment these schools offer, African-American
students were falling behind their white academic counterparts who were
attending somewhat less competitive schools. Sander's critics, on the other
hand, had no explanation for why white students perform better on the bar
exam than African-American students with identical credentials.
Under Sander's calculations, if law schools were to use race-neutral
admissions policies, fewer African-American students would be admitted to
law schools. But since those who were admitted would be attending schools
where they were very likely to do well, fewer would fail or drop out. In the
end, more would pass the bar exam on their first try (1,896 versus 1,567
successful African-American first-time test takers among the graduating
class of 2004) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 versus 1,981
among that same class) than under current admissions practices.
Sander's research was criticized by proponents of race-preferential
admissions on the ground that it was just one study, and Sander agreed that
more research would be desirable. He used the best and most recent data
available at the time, and his calculations have been verified by others,
but surely confirming the results with a different and more recent database
would have been useful. In a report issued in 2007, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights urged grant-making agencies to fund research into this issue
and requested that state bar associations cooperate with this research.
Unfortunately, something closer to the opposite has happened. In order to
confirm his initial findings, Sander assembled an ideologically diverse team
of investigators and sought data from the State Bar of California. Urged
not to cooperate by some of the very same people who had previously
complained that Sander needed more evidence, the state bar denied the team
access. It didn't matter that Gerald Reynolds, chairman of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, flew to San Francisco to ask personally for the
state bar's cooperation. It didn't matter that the data had been cheerfully
shared with other researchers. The California bar wanted no part of this
important research. A court battle is now underway.
Meanwhile, Sander and University of Arizona law professor Jane Yakowitz
Bambauer have taken to examining one the most dearly held beliefs of
affirmative-action advocates — that enrolling in the most
prestigious school one can get into is the key to success. This premise,
central to affirmative action, turns out to be false: In predicting future
income, getting good grades in law school matters more than getting into a
top law school. And as Sander and Bambauer demonstrate in "The Secret of My
Success: How Status, Eliteness and School Performance Shape Legal Careers,"
this is true for law students generally, not just under-represented
minorities.
Put differently, aspiring lawyers who tear their hair out to get into the
most prestigious law school possible — figuring they can just
cruise to a law degree once they get to campus — are making a
mistake. They need to be putting at least as much effort into excelling once
they are in school. If students at Harvard don't work hard, their
professional stars may be eclipsed by lawyers with similar entering
credentials who attended lesser law schools and made better grades.
Again and again, the results are the same, no matter what the area of study:
Attending a highly competitive school is a good thing. But so is getting
good grades. Indeed, getting good grades is somewhat more important than
attending a prestigious school. A public policy that ensures that African-
American and Hispanic students will disproportionately attend schools where
their grades are likely to be worse than their classmates' thus works to the
minority students' disadvantage.
THE SHAPE OF MISINFORMATION
To be sure, those who wish to ignore the mismatch literature have been given
a convenient excuse to do so: the influential 1998 book defending
affirmative action, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions, written by Bowen and
Bok. Their book calculated that even black men with combined SAT scores of
less than 1000 — low for elite schools — who
attend top-tier schools like Princeton out-earn similarly credentialed
students who attend schools like Pennsylvania State.
The book received an astonishing level of attention when it was published.
Fawning editorials appeared in many newspapers. The New York Times announced
that it "flatly refute[d]" the arguments of critics of race-preferential
admissions. Newsweek's Ellis Cose commented that the book was the "most
ambitious study to date of the effects of affirmative action in higher
education" and "an important corrective to conservative propaganda." Some of
the commentary specifically addressed the issue of mismatch: Harvard
University sociologist Nathan Glazer argued in the Washington Post that it
was now "clear" that worries over mismatch were misplaced. The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette editorialized that the notion that race-based admissions
policies have hurt African-American students "is one that can be dismissed."
For many reasons, however, the methodology used in The Shape of the River is
seriously flawed. For example, Bowen and Bok took account only of SAT
scores, overlooking other academic credentials like high-school rank. One
cannot assume that a student at Princeton with a given SAT score is the
equivalent of a student with the same score at Penn State. There is an
excellent chance that the first student has a substantially better high-
school GPA or other distinctions in his favor; that is one reason he is at
Princeton instead of Penn State. Indeed, Ivy League presidents like Bowen
and Bok are constantly making this point themselves: Their schools reject
many applicants with stratospheric SAT scores in favor of applicants they
believe show greater academic promise in other ways.
Even using flawed methodology, however, it is difficult to avoid the
evidence of affirmative action's failure. The Shape of the River's own
figures show that black men with SAT scores between 1000 and 1099 and black
women with SAT scores between 1100 and 1199 are likely to earn more if they
stay away from the most elite schools.
Why might that be? Buried in book's appendices is a more sophisticated
analysis that attempts to explain how various factors influence the
subsequent earnings of black graduates of selective colleges or universities
. Each such factor's effect was measured, including (to a limited extent) a
student's high-school rank and whether his college grades put him at the top
, middle, or bottom third of his class. The authors purport to show that
attending a school like Princeton rather than a school like Penn State adds
to the income of black students. They appear oblivious, however, to the
stunning point made by their own figures, throughout the different
permutations of their analysis: College grades generally contribute more.
Imagine two black males with identical SAT scores, both in the top 10% of
their high-school classes, and both from middle-class families. Only their
colleges are different. Bowen and Bok convincingly demonstrate that if the
two have the same college major and similar grades, the one who attends
Princeton will earn considerably more than the one who attends Penn State.
But what if they don't have similar grades? By the authors' own calculations
, it is better to be a black male at Penn State in the top third of the
class than in the bottom third at Princeton. The increased earnings the Penn
State student gets from high grades are worth almost twice the increased
earnings from attending Princeton. And the boost in earnings he would get
from majoring in natural science rather than the humanities — a
more achievable goal at Penn State — is a whopping $49,537 per
year.
If one's class rank and major were unrelated to the selectivity level of one
's college, then it would be perfectly sensible for the authors to celebrate
the finding that, all other things being equal, black males get an earnings
boost from attending Princeton rather than Penn State. But they are not
unrelated. For students who would not have been admitted but for racial
preferences, the chances of being in the top third of the class are remote.
The only question is whether a student who attends Princeton and winds up in
the bottom third of the class would likely have been in the top third of
Penn State. And the answer to that question, at least in many cases, is yes.
Consider, for example, a black male with combined math and verbal SAT
scores of 1300 (out of a possible 1600) who just missed being in the top 10%
of his high-school class. If he attends Penn State, his SAT scores will put
him exactly at the 75th percentile in the 2011 entering class (using
figures from U.S. News & World Report). That would give him an excellent
shot at earning grades in the top third of his class, or graduating with a
natural-science degree, or both. If this student instead enrolls at
Princeton, however, his SAT scores will put him 110 points below the 25th
percentile for that school, likely making his academic standing very tenuous
. If he wants to maximize his earnings upon graduation, the choice is
obvious.
How could Bowen and Bok have missed the import of their own research? The
answer may lie partly in the fact that the book was rushed to press in 1998
just two months before Election Day. On the ballot that year was Washington
State's Initiative 200, a clone of California's Proposition 209, which
prohibited race-preferential admissions policies in state colleges and
universities. Supporters of race-preferential admissions hoped that The
Shape of the River would change voters' minds about the desirability of such
prohibitions.
Initiative 200 passed anyway, but The Shape of the River slowed the momentum
of state popular initiatives in this area. Perhaps more important, The
Shape of the River was cited by and seems to have heavily influenced Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor in her opinion for the majority in Grutter. The book
and its influence thus point to the troubling implications of using social-
science research in constitutional analysis, particularly on the subject of
race.
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION
Brown v. Board of Education may be the most important Supreme Court decision
in the area of race in the past century. In arriving at its conclusion in
1954 that "separate but equal" school systems are inherently unequal, the
Court relied in part on the now-famous doll experiments of Kenneth and Mamie
Clark, intended to test the self-perception of young African-American
children brought up in the Jim Crow South. The Clarks showed the children
two dolls that were identical except for skin and hair color: One doll
represented a blonde white person and the other a black person. When asked
which of the two dolls was the nice one, which looked bad, which was the
more attractive color, and which was more appealing to play with, the
African-American children showed a consistent preference for the white doll.
Constitutional scholars look back at the doll experiments and ask, "What if
the children had preferred the black doll?" What if it turned out that the
children's preference for the white doll had nothing to do with low self-
esteem caused by Jim Crow segregation? Would that have made the case for
Brown v. Board of Education weaker? Should the constitutional right to equal
protection turn on the latest social-science research?
The answer to these latter questions should be, "Of course not." The
Constitution demands equal protection for all persons regardless of whether
they can demonstrate through social-science research that they have been
harmed by some law or policy or social practice. The Clarks' doll
experiments were certainly interesting; given the uncertainties of
litigation, the attorneys for the Brown plaintiffs were wise to bring them
to the attention of the Court. But the Court probably should not have given
the impression that its constitutional analysis might be shaped by the
results of such an experiment.
If Brown should not have relied on the doll experiments, does that mean the
Court should not take social-science research into account in rendering
decisions in litigation over race-preferential admissions policies? Some
have suggested as much, arguing that the research showing the harm done by
race-preferential admissions should be off-limits.
As it happens, though, the Court has already taken social-science research
into account — and in Grutter, it almost certainly took bad
social-science research into account. In concluding that race-preferential
admissions policies were beneficial to minority students, and that the Court
should therefore make an exception to the otherwise overwhelming
presumption against racially discriminatory laws and policies, Justice O'
Connor's citation to The Shape of the River was explicit. But even without
such a citation, it is clear that the Court's decision was premised on a
belief that race-preferential admissions were helping, or at least not
hurting, African-American and Hispanic students.
Of course, under Grutter, increased campus diversity was said to benefit all
students, not just under-represented minorities. Consequently, racial
discrimination to obtain that benefit was deemed permissible. But minority
students are not public utilities; their futures should not be sacrificed to
serve broader goals of social engineering. And it is difficult to imagine a
college or university knowingly employing race-preferential admissions to
give white and Asian students an advantage at the expense of African-
American and Hispanic students. The Grutter decision thus would have been
unthinkable in the absence of a strong conviction by the Court that
affirmative action was providing minority students with a substantial
advantage, not a disadvantage.
Now it is becoming evident that it was all a mistake. The strong
constitutional presumption against race discrimination in all its forms,
which must be firm and unchanging to be effective, was laid aside for no
good reason.
To compare this to Brown and the doll experiments, one would have to imagine
that Brown had come out the other way — in favor of racially
segregated schools — because the Court had some reason to
believe that Jim Crow was benefiting all students. If later, more
sophisticated research had exposed that belief as erroneous, it would be
incumbent upon the Supreme Court to return to the principle that race
discrimination should not be tolerated.
It remains to be seen what the Court will do in Fisher. It seems unlikely
that its decision will cite or discuss the mismatch literature, and that is
as it should be. But that does not mean that this body of research will not,
or should not, affect the Court's thinking. The mismatch literature is
showing Grutter to be a well-meaning but ultimately misguided deviation from
what otherwise had become accepted principle — that race
discrimination should not be tolerated. Perhaps in the future, the Court
will not be so flexible with its principles.
Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a
member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Click here to view on the Web:
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-iron | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 73 Bump the thread.
Quoting from the online article:
Vishal says:
March 21, 2013 at 12:39 pm
An Asian speaking here, I agree that America isn’t a meritocracy, but has
it ever been? It seems like this article’s falling for the oldest trick in
the book — looking back at the “good old days”. I’d argue that now more
than ever, the barrier to entry is lower than ever, and that every
individual can rise to the occasion and innovate for the better. Places like
Exeter (my alma mater) aren’t just playgrounds for the rich — I’m not
extremely wealthy, and neither were my classmates. Most of us were even on
financial aid. Don’t just point fingers at institutions to account for
shortcomings — if you had the stroke of fortune to be born in a nation with
such opportunity, with hard work and CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, anything is
possible.
Has anyone thought about why the test-prep business has expanded so much? It
’s to feed into the very same system that you’re complaining about. Be the
change you wish to see in the world, not a victim of it. To many of the
Asians out there, I’d say get over your 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score and be
unique for once. | y*****y
发帖数: 1208 | 74 What was your point again? YOu think you won the debate? Don't make me LMAO | t*******r
发帖数: 22634 | 75 呼吁私立藤校相对难度更高, 私立受法律约束少, 藤校总数少, 连亚裔去藤校比例也不
是那么高。
从 state system 的公立系统开始呼吁, 可能更有效些。
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 个白人的观点说的也有道理：人家如果象亚裔那样学， 一点不输亚裔。 我一时想不出
: 来如何反驳。
: 分数上的差异代表不了智力， 最优秀的亚裔孩子，白人孩子， 别的有色人种孩子，
: 很难说谁比谁成功。
| u*****7
发帖数: 746 | 76 我觉得作者这个图其实很能说明问题，只是解释和分析不够深入，有点jump into
conclusion太快，所以易引起反驳。我来试着反驳一下你的反驳。
按你说的，这是作者的结论：作者依照上图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到
2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持
平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧视了。我觉得这个结论是对的。
你的反驳（1）：白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能
也增加很快， ，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些
族裔的学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他
们也被歧视了？
常春藤名校招生是号称不考虑race的，所以应该跟族裔人口基数无关，跟申请人客观上
qualify没有它的入学标准有关。如果一个常春藤名校每年招1000新生，并且纯粹以每
个申请人是否qualify德智体美劳综合因素来衡量的，那么如果一个族裔的适龄申请人
大大增加比如说翻倍了，增加的那部分人里qualify这个招生标准的会不会更多，这是
个需要进一步分析的问题。如果是同样招生标准，亚裔人口翻倍前亚裔100个人合格，
亚裔人口翻倍后亚裔200个人合格，那么“亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比
例只是持平”就非常大的可能是不合理的。你说的不错，西班牙裔人口增加也很多，但
大家都知道老墨增加的人口不少是偷渡过来的，家庭环境和对教育的重视程度都不如亚
裔新增加的人口，那么如果同是新增加了人口100万，哪个族裔的新增加的100万申请人
里qualify的人会更多呢？我觉得亚裔新增加移民会完胜老墨新增加移民，当然这点需
要数据来进一步论证。其实楼主提供的link文章里就提到了一个很好的数据：Asians
were less than 10 percent of U.S. Math Olympiad winners during the 1980s,
but rose to a striking 58 percent of the total during the last thirteen
years 2000–2012. For the Computing Olympiad, Asian winners averaged about
20 percent of the total during most of the 1990s and 2000s, but grew to 50
percent during 2009–2010 and a remarkable 75 percent during 2011–2012. 这
一点充分说明，亚裔不仅是事实上人口基数变大的问题，也是整体申请人竞争力也变大
了的问题。简单点来说，如果别的族裔人口都没变，就亚裔和西班牙裔人口剧增了，常
春藤名校里亚裔和西班牙裔的比例都应该增高，但亚裔应该会增加得更多。比如人口增
加后亚裔从100人qualify增加到200人qualify，西班牙裔从50人qualify变成了60人
qualify，总共1110人qualify了，但1000名新生里还是只招了100名亚裔，sort到末尾
淘汰的110人里100人都是亚裔，难道不能说明什么问题吗？
你的反驳（2）：如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例
，应该和亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚
裔 18 岁到 21岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚
裔才可能避免种族歧视的标签。
作者并没有象你这样的暗示，是你理解偏差。简单情况下，如果亚裔人口增加5倍，如
果招生标准不变，亚裔会从100人qualify变成500人qualify，但不是说别的族裔就没人
qualify了。所有qualify的按综合评定分数一sort，取前1000名，我不相信亚裔那新
增加的400qualfy的人都会sort到最末去。其结果亚裔应该是被接受的比例更大，但不
会是100%全是亚裔。如果不服气，名校可以调整招生标准，但只要不把race放进去我们
都不怕。
你的反驳（3）：仅从华裔人口增加的细节来看，众所周知，大陆来的小留学生数目在
1991 到 2011爆增。从台湾来的也不会减少。而这些群体刚好部分解释了为什么亚裔
18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多。请问，这些人都是聪明绝顶的该上
长春藤学校的学生吗？相反，很多从大陆来的小留学生，在大陆根本考不上大学！
新移民里不管多少人是在大陆根本考不上大学的，甚至在美国都只能上社区大学的，都
doesn’t matter. 但如果新来的人里面有达到名校综合标准的，就是亚裔整体qualify
的数目增大了。也许来了10万人，只增加了100人qualify该名校，那也是多了100个合
格的亚裔过了该名校标准。如果你不能证明别的族裔里qualify的申请人也跟亚裔一样
增加了同样比例，那么亚裔学生在名校百分比例只是持平就有问题。
裔
21
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 那个图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚
: 裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧
: 视了。
: 反驳：
: 1）白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能也增加很快，
: ，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些族裔的学生在绝
: 大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他们也被歧视了？
: 2）如果文章作者暗示，亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的的百分比例，应该和亚裔
: 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 的增加比例同步增长，那么当亚裔 18 岁到 21
: 岁的人数达到 1991 年人数的五倍时，长春藤学校的学生应该全部是亚裔才可能避免
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 77 what's your logic, genius minion?
there's no law suit about Chinese Exclusion Act 1882. So this discrimination
act is justified?
university should not be a circus of ethnic groups for political show but a
place for all the people WORKING HARD to seek the truth. There's no
position for any race entitlement when you are solving a math problem.
and
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: What were the results of those two lawsuits?
: Both were withdrawn, weren't they?
: Using statistical data of SAT scores ALONE to prove discrimination in the
: admission process is misguided. It is not an apple to apple comparison and
: it does not answer the critical question: Do we need diversity in the
: university?
: wrong TREE, not wrong TRUE.
:
: are
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 78 历史事实都没搞明白，就别尼玛玩比喻了。整个一个奴才思维，谁借谁都光了？
你这叉叉搞搞清楚，当年民权运动只有黑人自己在争取吗？那么多白人黄人棕人都被你
这叉叉给故意忽视了？当年老毛还带领全中国人民声援马丁路德金，你这叉叉该回家拿
二两棉花访访，别整天大放厥词光腚拉磨了。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
: 或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
: 当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
: 。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
: 了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
: 又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
: 分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
: 被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
: 便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
: 占便宜可就不那么明显了。
| c******i
发帖数: 4091 | 79 你这个叉叉逻辑劈叉自搧耳光简直罄竹难书。
同样学校专业，亚裔的录取分数标准比白墨黑高出几百分，即使如此，墨黑的比例也低
，说明啥？
你罗嗦一大堆，自己都说出答案了，自己也搬到好学区了，然后尼玛为这种歧视性的aa
制度辩护，你这叉叉的斯德哥尔摩综合症没治了，逻辑紊乱到精分的地步了。
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 客观？你一个亚裔，如果是学数理化或生物或经济或计算机的本科，周围是亚裔多还是
: 黑人或西班牙裔多？你知道黑人或西班牙裔大多学文科，而亚裔大都学理科吗？如果藤
: 校招你去读非洲历史，你去吗？
: 拿中国高考来说，热门专业（比如英语）的平均分肯定远远高于冷门专业（比如拉丁语
: ）的平均分。没有这些信息，你能＂客观＂地解释分数差异？
: 至少从这种不同科目的生源分布和相应平均分来讲，亚裔如果想挤进＂抢手＂的专业，
: 必须把自己的 SAT 提到高得不能再高，以便把其他的竞争对手挤下去。就和炒学区房
: 一样！圣地亚哥的犹太地产开发商，背后不知道怎么笑话亚裔买主呢！
: 再者，特招运动员里面华人多还是其它有色人多？他们的平均分是多少呀？
: 亚裔其实就是在和亚裔竞争，无论是买学区房还是爬藤。那些以为挤掉黑人就可以增加
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 80 A plaintiff who files a lawsuit needs to have standing. That is, to file a
lawsuit, you must have been directly wronged by the person or entity you
wish to sue. Those who had standing for the case you mentioned have to be
over 120 years-old today.
Plus, if no one files a lawsuit, there is no way for the Court to have an
opinion.
As to why we need a court ruling in this case, we are talking about a policy
important to a nation. Diversity, at least right now, is needed to keep the
society running properly. If a group wants to change the national policy
which has the backing of Supreme Court rulings, the group has to overturn
that ruling either using the legislative route or the judicial route. Then
the executive branch of the government will carry out whatever policy or law
deemed legal/constitutional by the other two branches. Back to the case you
mentioned, only the legislative route is available and apparently that is
the route taken for the case.
Speaking of circus, Mr. Unz, who wrote that online article, is quite a clown
. His ill-gotten data fooled many readers and his illogical conclusion was
applauded by some.
Regarding truth, it is one thing to CLAIM knowing the truth, it is quite
another to PROVE the truth. A court filing is one such opportunity for
parties involved to discover the truth about a claim. Are you ready for that
kind of challenge instead of ranting online?
discrimination
a
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: what's your logic, genius minion?
: there's no law suit about Chinese Exclusion Act 1882. So this discrimination
: act is justified?
: university should not be a circus of ethnic groups for political show but a
: place for all the people WORKING HARD to seek the truth. There's no
: position for any race entitlement when you are solving a math problem.
:
: and
| | | B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 81 If you are so drawn by your belief, just become the next great 吃叉子, who
embodies the new Chinese American. This is a free world and you are
certainly entitled to your own belief. Just learn how to give a speech that
is quotable.
Regarding hard work, at least in the Fisher case, some organizations
appeared to have made a calculated move to take advantage of 1) only 8
Judges available and at least 4 are against AA; 2) another group is leading
a battle with the perceived benefit to said organizations; 3) no need to
write a convincing brief themselves since still another group will write
one for them. A great game plan to piggybank OTHER's hard work and make a
fortune if the picked side win. But what they forgot to do is to have solid,
HARD evidence to substantiate their claims. Do the ground work, not rely on
name calling, if you are serious. Put your money on where your mouth is.
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: 历史事实都没搞明白，就别尼玛玩比喻了。整个一个奴才思维，谁借谁都光了？
: 你这叉叉搞搞清楚，当年民权运动只有黑人自己在争取吗？那么多白人黄人棕人都被你
: 这叉叉给故意忽视了？当年老毛还带领全中国人民声援马丁路德金，你这叉叉该回家拿
: 二两棉花访访，别整天大放厥词光腚拉磨了。
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 82 Your reading comprehension is your own problem. If you are so convinced that
an Asian applicant lost a seat to a Hispanic or African American, name all
the parties, write a complaint, and file in a suitable jurisdiction, if it
is so OBVIOUS and easy to prove. Remember the plaintiff must have standing.
Mind you, find some hard evidence, not an article written by a political
activist such as Mr. Unz.
aa
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: 你这个叉叉逻辑劈叉自搧耳光简直罄竹难书。
: 同样学校专业，亚裔的录取分数标准比白墨黑高出几百分，即使如此，墨黑的比例也低
: ，说明啥？
: 你罗嗦一大堆，自己都说出答案了，自己也搬到好学区了，然后尼玛为这种歧视性的aa
: 制度辩护，你这叉叉的斯德哥尔摩综合症没治了，逻辑紊乱到精分的地步了。
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 83 1) "比如人口增加后亚裔从100人qualify增加到200人qualify，西班牙裔从50人
qualify变成了60人 qualify"
Based on your hypothesis, the Hispanic population may become more retarded
when years go by, which is absurd. You see, if you look at the sheer
number of increase of the Hispanic population, it probably trumps any
increase in NUMBER for other ethnic groups. Their increase in NUMBER
probably is more than 5 times the increase in NUMBER for Asians. However,
the enrollment of Hispanic students in Ivy league school does not increase.
This would be a proof of discrimination against the Hispanic group,
according to the rationale proposed in the online article. If no such
discrimination, then another alternative explanation is that the whole
Hispanic ethnic group becomes more retarded and produces lower percentage of
genius to qualify for the Ivy schools. Still another possibility is that
there is neither discrimination nor drop in intelligence for the Hispanic
group, but a result of normal distribution of the enrollment among
different ethnic groups like BEFORE. Back to the numbers you gave: if both
races double their population, the overall qualifying candidates for each
group should BOTH double! Therefore, there will be 100 more Asians and 50
more Hispanic candidates adding to the eligible pool for Ivy league unless
you assume that the Hispanics becomes more retarded over time or the
Hispanics are discriminated.
2) If there are 100 more eligible Asian applicants for Ivy league in 2011
than in 1991, then there are probably more than 100 more eligible Hispanic
applicants for IVY league in 2011 than in 1991 even when considering the non
-proven Genius index or IQ difference proposed by you. The increase in the
NUMBER for the Asian group is coupled with the much bigger increase in the
NUMBER for the Hispanic group. If it is harder for the Asian applicants to
get into the Ivy league in 2011 than in 1991, it is equally, if not to a
higher degree, harder for the Hispanic group in 2011 than in 1991. You
cannot use a tunnel vision and focus on Asian and Asian only. Be an American!
( 所有qualify的按综合评定分数一sort，取前1000名，我不相信亚裔那新
增加的400qualfy的人都会sort到最末去。) Neither would the increased eligible
applicants from other ethnic groups. That is the point of NUMBER vs. NUMBER
and PERCENTAGE vs. PERCENTAGE. More eligible Asians, right? More eligible
Hispanics! Why should all newly eligible Hispanics go all the way to the
bottom? But there are ONLY 1000 seats with many more eligible candidates
from ALL the races. It is more competitive and HARDER to get in for EVERYONE
, not only for Asians! What is constant or near constant would be the
PERCENTAGE of admitted student from each ethnic group in each university if
all ethnic groups grow at the same rate and there is no sharp increase or
drop in average IQ for a particular group. I hardly see that there is
anything wrong or abnormal with increased difficulty to get into a good
school over time.
3)Further, in the online article, the author says:
"And since the beginning of the 1990s, Caltech’s Asian-American enrollment
has RISEN almost EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE GROWTH of Americas underlying
Asian population, with Asians now constituting nearly 40 percent of each
class (See chart on p. 18)." I did not put words into the author's mouth.
That is his words and the implication according to the chart is that ALL Ivy
schools should increase Asian-American enrollment almost exactly in line
with the growth of American's underlying Asian population. Reading
comprehension, readers. I read the whole article!
3) Other scholars have questioned the way Mr. Unz collected and analyzed the
ethnic data from different schools. Professor Mertz from University of
Wisconsin has published an article pointing out numerous mistakes made by Mr
. Unz when analyzing all kinds of name lists from Olympiad winners to
freshmen in college. Here is the link:
http://andrewgelman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Mertz-on-Unz
Comment by another blogger:
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/03/06/18150/
Analysis by still another writer:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/02/why-has-ron-unz-st
I am not the only one who questioned the way Mr. Unz published and analyzed
the data. As I said before, data can be twisted by an author to suit
whatever purpose he or she might have. Truth be told, the data and
conclusions of Mr. Unz' article can never be used as evidence in a court
hearing.
Another comment about number vs. percentage:
"
esmith
• 10 months ago △ ▽
Can't comment about the article, but the chart, and particularly the right
scale, are misleading.
* In 4 out of 8 Ivies, Asian share of enrollment has increased more than 50%
since 1990.
* Why are we looking at _absolute_ numbers of Asians vs. _relative_ shares
of enrollment? Total college age population of the United States grew 13%
from 1990 to 2011.
* It is natural for Caltech to have a higher Asian share of enrollment,
compared to Ivies. Asians are overrepresented in STEM fields, and Caltech
specializes in STEM. Furthermore, Caltech is located in California.
California has the second highest Asian share of population in the country (
after Hawaii) at triple the national average.
Compare Caltech to MIT. They have similar profiles, Caltech is 40% Asian,
MIT is only 25% Asian. The share of Asians in Caltech has boosted by a
factor of 1.6 by geographical factors. Then compare Caltech (STEM
specialization, 40% Asian) to Stanford (unspecialized, 20% to 25% Asian). On
the basis of these numbers, 15-18% Asian share in the Ivies appears
reasonable".
Link:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-myth-of-american-merit
In short, analyze the data as what an academic would do, not what a
political activist would do.
到
。他
观上
【在 u*****7 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得作者这个图其实很能说明问题，只是解释和分析不够深入，有点jump into
: conclusion太快，所以易引起反驳。我来试着反驳一下你的反驳。
: 按你说的，这是作者的结论：作者依照上图说：亚裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到
: 2011 增加很多，已经加倍了。但亚裔学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例只是持
: 平，没有太大变化。结论：亚裔被歧视了。我觉得这个结论是对的。
: 你的反驳（1）：白人，黑人，西班牙裔 18 岁到 21 岁的人数在 1991 到 2011 可能
: 也增加很快， ，其增长的人数可能远远超过亚裔增长的人数，尤其是西班牙裔。这些
: 族裔的学生在绝大部分长春藤学校中的百分比例，可能也只是持平，没有太大变化。他
: 们也被歧视了？
: 常春藤名校招生是号称不考虑race的，所以应该跟族裔人口基数无关，跟申请人客观上
| b*x
发帖数: 5456 | 84 最简单的一个问题， 大学是不是一个merit based的system？
是的话， SAT， art performance， leadership， athletic， 都算merit，
race算哪门子merit？ family income算什么merit？ diversity 自然形成的当然是持
久的有益的， 强制的diversity算什么？何况谁订的这个%的diversity？
discrimination
a
【在 c******i 的大作中提到】
: what's your logic, genius minion?
: there's no law suit about Chinese Exclusion Act 1882. So this discrimination
: act is justified?
: university should not be a circus of ethnic groups for political show but a
: place for all the people WORKING HARD to seek the truth. There's no
: position for any race entitlement when you are solving a math problem.
:
: and
| n****m
发帖数: 1283 | 85 My answer will be " Why don't your kid learn in the same way like the Asians
?"
We have been talking about assigning kids to the appropriate levels. There
are schools that provide more difficult classes or education with higher
standard. There are schools that provide easier classes.
If you kids do not want to do it the difficult way, please do not waste the
education resource.
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 个白人的观点说的也有道理：人家如果象亚裔那样学， 一点不输亚裔。 我一时想不出
: 来如何反驳。
: 分数上的差异代表不了智力， 最优秀的亚裔孩子，白人孩子， 别的有色人种孩子，
: 很难说谁比谁成功。
| z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 86 如果白人孩子都像非洲裔那样学，是不是很快白人就会主宰NBA了？
俺一时想不出来如何反驳。:)
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 个白人的观点说的也有道理：人家如果象亚裔那样学， 一点不输亚裔。 我一时想不出
: 来如何反驳。
: 分数上的差异代表不了智力， 最优秀的亚裔孩子，白人孩子， 别的有色人种孩子，
: 很难说谁比谁成功。
| z****0
发帖数: 3942 | 87 美国大学入学对亚裔有歧视是很明显的问题。为何那些藤校不敢在录取中像中国高考阅
卷一样，在大学录取中将学生的名字和种族信息屏蔽掉，完全根据学生的成绩和综合能
力来录取呢？因为他们知道，如果那样做，后果如下：
Top schools that don't ask about race in admissions process have very high
percentages of Asian students. The California Institute of Technology, a
private school that chooses not to consider race, is about one-third Asian.
(Thirteen percent of California residents have Asian heritage.) The
University of California- Berkeley, which is forbidden by state law to
consider race in admissions, is more than 40 percent Asian — up from about
20 percent before the law was passed. "
applicants
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Accusing Ivy league schools of discriminating Asian students (not applicants
: ) without solid evidence or proof?
: Systematic and institutionalized discrimination?
: Big mouth with little or no substance.
:
: show
: of
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 88 Simple. Only 5% of the U.S. population is Asian while in CA the number is 13
% as you just said.
3 x 13% = 39% (Berkeley's number, admitting mostly Californians)
3 x 5% = 15% (lower than Ivy school's number, admitting mostly Ameircan)
As to Caltech, it only admits a few hundreds of freshmen, all in science and
technology, which is a stronghold of Asians anyway. Caltech does not have
African History as an academic field. No does it have Spanish Literature.
Statistical study will NEVER prove anything in court since it is open to all
kinds of reasonable explanation.
Statistically speaking, with only 8 judges available and according to their
voting record, the Supreme Court should have abolished the race as a factor
in college admission when they decided the Fisher case. Based on that
reasoning, 80-20 filed its brief with the help of a Jewish(?) center to wish
for and hedge on the ruling for Fisher. And the result was??
Clear and convincing evidence is needed for the losing side in appellant
court. The solutions for 80-20 are:
1) Win the next case in the trial court and force the other side to face
higher standard of evidence; or
2) Find HARD evidence of an admission quota used in any public-funded
university on race, instead of relying on statistics.
A study cited online says:
Statistically speaking, the correlation of SAT scores with future success in
career is as reliable as finding the shoe color of the applicants. Go
figure.
.
about
【在 z****0 的大作中提到】
: 美国大学入学对亚裔有歧视是很明显的问题。为何那些藤校不敢在录取中像中国高考阅
: 卷一样，在大学录取中将学生的名字和种族信息屏蔽掉，完全根据学生的成绩和综合能
: 力来录取呢？因为他们知道，如果那样做，后果如下：
: Top schools that don't ask about race in admissions process have very high
: percentages of Asian students. The California Institute of Technology, a
: private school that chooses not to consider race, is about one-third Asian.
: (Thirteen percent of California residents have Asian heritage.) The
: University of California- Berkeley, which is forbidden by state law to
: consider race in admissions, is more than 40 percent Asian — up from about
: 20 percent before the law was passed. "
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 89 我刚好又看到一个科学家发表对Mr. Unz 那个歪曲数据的彩图的看法。Chad Orzel is
an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Union
College in Schenectady, NY. He blogs about physics, life in academia,
ephemeral pop culture, and anything else that catches his fancy.
In his blog in November, 2012, Mr. Orzel wrote:
. . . This is comparing apples to potatoes. . . What’s wrong with this?
Well, it’s not a fair comparison– you’re comparing a percentage to an
absolute number. . . If you scale the Asian-American numbers by the general
population increase, the change is more like a 50% increase than the factor-
of-two change in the absolute numbers. . . If the data were really clear and
damning, they wouldn’t need to resort to How to Lie With Statistics
graphical chicanery, would they?
Link:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/11/28/the-visual-presen
There are trained eyes in this world for fraud. It proved again statistical
data can be twisted to fit the purpose of the individual author.
Mr. Unz used discriminating data to prove the existence of discrimination. | v*******e
发帖数: 11604 | 90 这个北大学子，真他妈的给北大抹黑。北大就教育出这样的煞笔出来？到底是北大的问
题，还是中国文化的问题，还是她自己的问题？ | | | p**s
发帖数: 2707 | 91 首先，这种社会科学的统计，不过是说明一个趋势，没必要像所谓的物理学家那样搞得
那么精确。
而且，就算是说绝对数字跟百分比不能比，那要换成百分数，也应该用同年龄的人口当
分母，他拿的是美国总人口，249M到309M，先用这个数据，那100%的人口增长，会变成
61%的百分数增长，怎么到他文章里就成了50%？科学家不会连个简单的除法也不会了吧。
再说同年龄的人口，他的文章是去年写的，这个数据完全可以在census数据库里查到，
对于一个物理学家，查这点数据用不了5分钟，不知道他是没查还是故意没用。真巧今
天查不了了。不过从网上找的图，20岁左右人口，增长只有15%（20年里人更长寿，老
年人口增长更快），用这个数据当分母，那亚裔百分比增长大概是75%
如果说Unz用了绝对数字，增长100%，误差达到1/4，那这个所谓科学家给的50%，误差
达到1/2，到底是谁在歪曲数据？
is
general
factor-
and
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 我刚好又看到一个科学家发表对Mr. Unz 那个歪曲数据的彩图的看法。Chad Orzel is
: an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Union
: College in Schenectady, NY. He blogs about physics, life in academia,
: ephemeral pop culture, and anything else that catches his fancy.
: In his blog in November, 2012, Mr. Orzel wrote:
: . . . This is comparing apples to potatoes. . . What’s wrong with this?
: Well, it’s not a fair comparison– you’re comparing a percentage to an
: absolute number. . . If you scale the Asian-American numbers by the general
: population increase, the change is more like a 50% increase than the factor-
: of-two change in the absolute numbers. . . If the data were really clear and
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 92 Then wait until the U.S. governmental shutdown ends, then search for the age
group 18-21 numbers in years 1991 and 2010 (or 2011, whichever is available
).
It is inescapable that comparing number to percentage is cheating as pointed
out by the physics professor. He also listed the possible reasons why Mr.
Unz did just that: to fool unsophisticated readers. That's what I have said
and that is what has been proved by others.
Using Mr. Unz's mis-guided article as "evidence" for the racial "quota" is
no better than a witch-hunt. Mr. Unz also betrayed the trust of his readers
since an ordinary reader is neither savant nor dolt, thus, a reader assumes
that what he reads in an article is the truth and what he sees in a graph is
the facts.
Most importantly, the physics professor's blog comports with common sense
that statistical data are prone to misrepresentation of facts and truth.
One year has passed since the publication of Mr. Unz's online article. Where
is the hard evidence for the quota among ALL Ivy league schools? When will
such a witch-hunt stop? Why there is not a SINGLE college admission officer
or staff, regardless of his or her skin color, coming out with testimony or
documents corroborating the existence of the so-called quota? There could be
another statistical study as well to link the absence of any other evidence
to the credibility (or the lack thereof) of Mr. Unz's claim, if you agree
with the notion that a statistical study is a proof. But in my mind, a
statistical study is NEVER a proof.
吧。
【在 p**s 的大作中提到】
: 首先，这种社会科学的统计，不过是说明一个趋势，没必要像所谓的物理学家那样搞得
: 那么精确。
: 而且，就算是说绝对数字跟百分比不能比，那要换成百分数，也应该用同年龄的人口当
: 分母，他拿的是美国总人口，249M到309M，先用这个数据，那100%的人口增长，会变成
: 61%的百分数增长，怎么到他文章里就成了50%？科学家不会连个简单的除法也不会了吧。
: 再说同年龄的人口，他的文章是去年写的，这个数据完全可以在census数据库里查到，
: 对于一个物理学家，查这点数据用不了5分钟，不知道他是没查还是故意没用。真巧今
: 天查不了了。不过从网上找的图，20岁左右人口，增长只有15%（20年里人更长寿，老
: 年人口增长更快），用这个数据当分母，那亚裔百分比增长大概是75%
: 如果说Unz用了绝对数字，增长100%，误差达到1/4，那这个所谓科学家给的50%，误差
| p**s
发帖数: 2707 | 93 把61%说成50%是不是为了误导？
age
available
pointed
said
readers
assumes
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Then wait until the U.S. governmental shutdown ends, then search for the age
: group 18-21 numbers in years 1991 and 2010 (or 2011, whichever is available
: ).
: It is inescapable that comparing number to percentage is cheating as pointed
: out by the physics professor. He also listed the possible reasons why Mr.
: Unz did just that: to fool unsophisticated readers. That's what I have said
: and that is what has been proved by others.
: Using Mr. Unz's mis-guided article as "evidence" for the racial "quota" is
: no better than a witch-hunt. Mr. Unz also betrayed the trust of his readers
: since an ordinary reader is neither savant nor dolt, thus, a reader assumes
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 94 Reading comprehension. The professor says that the increase in percentage is
more LIKE 50% than 100%. In reality, 61% is more like (or closer to) 50%
than 100%. Apparently, 61% is not good enough for Mr. Unz. He sheepishly
picked a way to show 100% increase! Cheaters will never win my approval.
【在 p**s 的大作中提到】
: 把61%说成50%是不是为了误导？
:
: age
: available
: pointed
: said
: readers
: assumes
| H**G
发帖数: 563 | 95 re
【在 v*******e 的大作中提到】
: 这个北大学子，真他妈的给北大抹黑。北大就教育出这样的煞笔出来？到底是北大的问
: 题，还是中国文化的问题，还是她自己的问题？
| y****i
发帖数: 12114 | 96 你自己说过再也不来这个版面了。但你现在又来了。
上网都要说空话，子曰“人而无信，不知其可也”；你的“认可”价值几何？
is
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: Reading comprehension. The professor says that the increase in percentage is
: more LIKE 50% than 100%. In reality, 61% is more like (or closer to) 50%
: than 100%. Apparently, 61% is not good enough for Mr. Unz. He sheepishly
: picked a way to show 100% increase! Cheaters will never win my approval.
| a***c
发帖数: 728 | 97 主人仆人？
【在 B******1 的大作中提到】
: 许多年前在美国，白主人让黑仆人去摘棉花，让黄仆人去铺铁路，还不让他俩上好学校
: 或乘好公车。后来黑仆人不干了，聚众闹事，被打了，被杀了。黑仆人中聪明的某些人
: 当了大律师。这些人开始在美国各地立案，证明不让黑仆人的孩子上好学校是不公平的
: 。最后官司打到美国最高法院，黑仆人赢了。黑仆人和黄仆人的孩子都可以去上好学校
: 了。谁借了谁的光是很明显的。
: 又过了几十年，白主人的孩子说自己被黑仆人的孩子欺负了，上不了好大学。此时，部
: 分黄仆人的孩子认为自己不是仆人的孩子了，跟白主人的孩子应该是一拨的，也说自己
: 被黑仆人的孩子欺负了。白主人暗笑啊，心说：就是抢了黑仆人的孩子的位置，也不会
: 便宜其他仆人的孩子。黑仆人心说：日久见人心啊。谁想借光是很明显的。可最后谁会
: 占便宜可就不那么明显了。
| B******1
发帖数: 9094 | 98 kindergarDen to kindergarTen, the effect of such reminders is obvious! |
|
