The editors of the Harvard Crimson argue today that discrimination against Asian applicants is necessary in order to produce the “diversity” they think is of overriding importance. (HatTip to reader Ed Chin)
Hans Bader, an alumnus, strenuously disagrees.
Although the statistical evidence is overwhelming, the Harvard Crimson claims there is “no definitive proof.” It speculates that that Asians are being rejected because they are grinds, not because of their race, and that that explains why Asians are less likely to be admitted than members of other races at any given level of academic achievement. People concerned about discrimination against Asians, it claims, must first take into account Asians’ possibly lesser “community involvement, leadership capabililities, [and] distinction in extracurricular activities.”
This is no basis for this speculation. The current crop of Asian high school students participate in extracurricular activies at least as much, on average, as students of any other race.
I don’t really know how to respond to this baseless downplaying of Harvard’s discriminatory and Orwellian “diversity” policy, which punishes Asians because they have the temerity to succeed in school.
My 3-year-old nephew is part Korean. Should we try to hide his ethnicity when he applies for college? Given the shape of his eyes, that may not be possible. It is a disgrace that his racial identifiability may expose this little boy to prejudice by both reactionary bigots and politically-correct college admissions staff.
The editors of the Crimson should themselves be crimson … with embarrassment.
This is absolutely shameful — the Crimson staff is using the same arguments as employed years earlier to defend anti-Jewish quotas at Harvard.
It would be appropriate for President Gilpin-Faust to write her own editorial condemning AA’s bias against Asian applicants, but I somehow think this won’t happen.
This article is interesting in that it’s very transparent. Except for never explaining what “diversity” is and why it’s a s good thing, the author almost comes right out and says that discrimination against Asians is unfortunate by necessary to facilitate discrimination in favor of Hispanics and Blacks.
I really wish someone would explain to me how on earth that position is defensible.
THIS IS TOTAL HOGWASH AND SIMPLY RACIST FROM THE HARVARD CRIMSON EDITORS.
Everyone who stands for racial justice and equality should be outraged by these flaming politically correct racists.
Quote:
“One shortcoming of the UCLA study, however, is that it offers no definitive proof that Asian Americans are discriminated against in states that still follow an affirmative action policy. Colleges advocate the importance of applicants’ community involvement, leadership capabiliities, distinction in extracurricular activities, and work experience in their admissions process. To examine the serious charge of racial discrimination, researchers should evaluate the contributions of applicants of different races to these other factors of admission as well.”
“As disheartening as evidence of admissions discrimination against Asian Americans would be, the pursuit of diversity necessarily requires colleges to make some harsh decisions about whom to accept.”
========================
Here are some of Harvard’s racial admit numbers, percentages and rates for the Class of 2009:
Asian American applicants, for the Class of 2009, were 23% of Harvard’s SCEA (Single Choice Early Action) total applicant pool, but only 18% of Harvard’s admitted students from SCEA. were Asian Americans. Asian Americans are accepted to Harvard at a lower rate than whites and at 1/2 the acceptance rate of blacks.
The Asian American percentage of the matriculated students is 18%. The Asian American percentage of Harvard’s applicant pool is over 23%.Asian Americans should be at least 23% of Harvard and more, if it were not for the anti-Asian quota.
Harvard is 25% to 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population.
Asian Americans have the least chance or odds of admission to Harvard due to race preferences in its admissions process. This represents a de facto quota against Asian Americans. Asian Americans represent the only non-preferred racial or ethnic group in Harvard admission. They are today’s Jews in the admissions process with caps on their numbers. There are no more quotas against Jews today. Read the book, “The Chosen”, by Karabel regarding discriminating and limiting quotas previously used against Jews in the Ivies, especially at Harvard.
The following data proves that Asian Americans have the LOWEST admit rate to Harvard.
Please click on:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/11.17/03-apps.html
From the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.16/03-admit.html
From the Harvard Gazette, 12/16/04
For the Class of 2009;
[Nearly 18 percent of the admitted students are Asian American (20.7 percent last year), 8.7 percent are African American (6.9 percent last year), 3.4 percent are Hispanic (2.3 percent last year), 2 percent Mexican American (2.9 percent last year), 0.7 percent Native American (0.8 percent last year), and 0.9 percent Puerto Rican (1.7 percent last year).]
These are the actual racial numbers/percentages for Harvard’s admitted early action applicants from the Harvard Gazzette, 12/16/04. For the Class of 2009, 23% of the early applicants were Asian Americans (from the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05), but only 18% of the admitted early applicants were Asian Americans, where as 5.2% of the early applicants were African American (from the Harvard Gazette, 11/17/05), but 8.7% of the admitted early applicants were African Americans.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
Asian Americans have as much or MORE “community involvement, leadership capabilities, distinction in extracurricular activities, and work experience” as ANY other group, including whites, blacks and Latinos and there is absolutely no evidence to contradict this and much evidence to verify this.
Previous internal studies at Brown and Stanford have shown that Asian American applicants, on the average, meet or exceed the *holistic criteria* used for admissions, in addition to the objective standards used, such as grades, and test scores and yet, they have the *lowest odds/chances* for admissions of all the racial and ethnic groups. These school admitted that there were cultural biases among the Admissions Committees against Asian applicants. According to the Harvard Crimson Editors, Asian Americans should *ACCEPT* being discriminated against. That’s hogwash. It is easy for them to say, since they are not the ones being discriminated against. Asian Americans are not GLUTTONS for punishment, especially when they are undeserving of it.
THIS IS TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL AND SIMPLY RACIST FROM THE HARVARD CRIMSON using racist Asian American stereotypes of the one-dimensional Asian, without any basis in truth at all, to justify an Asian limiting quota. This is exactly what happened to the Jews. History is repeating itself at Harvard, with Asian Americans as the “new Jews”. Harvard is 25% to 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population. Asian Americans are 5% of the population and 23% of Harvard’s applicants, yet they are only 18% of the admitted students
I think this demonstrates very nicely what diversity amounts to. Its a shame that the America I was brought up in, the one that prized merit, achievement, and hard work, is long gone. Long live diversity.
Oh, The Crimson is turning me scarlet. I don’t even know what a “grind” is.
The reason the diversicrats are using “community involvement, leadership capabililities, [and] distinction in extracurricular activities” to overthrow academic excellence is that those things are hard to quantify. If they could be quantified, I’m guessing the Asian Americans would come off pretty well, or dominate. The descendants of the Chinese merchant class – who have excelled economically in more countries than anyone has bothered to count – think maybe they know a little about community involvement?
The “leadership” thing really makes me cringe – they want you to picture athletes, guessing you won’t picture shorter and less-muscled Asians. They obviously don’t want you to think of sports where muscle and size don’t matter so much; I bet the captain of the gymnastics team shows some leadership.
No one notices, because we’ve trained ourselves not to believe “Asians are nerds” and to discount whatever nerds do. So, Asians go to college and study science and engineering and become upwardly mobile; this is discounted because of how easy it is to forget that Chinese- and Japanese-Americans weren’t exactly “rich” in 1945. People would rather envy nerds, ignore nerds, and spread rumors about nerds, than *gasp* emulate nerds. I hoped that the “nerd chic” of the early 90s would have corrected this somewhat … guess not.
A “grind” is the stereotypical Asian applicant (*) that spends full time studying and does none of the other things — sports, extracurriculars, student government, volunteering, etc. — that colleges claim they like to see.
(*) The term itself is race neutral.
The quota mongers don’t dislike the Asian kids solely because they study hard. They dislike them also for what they study.
It’s just my guess, but I’ll bet that Asian kids are far more likely to major in fields that involve concrete knowledge and that lead to solid employment, particularly in service and technical fields.
They are just the kind of kids the quota mongers don’t want. The quota mongers are looking for lazy kids who cruise through college without ever taking a course that requires concrete knowledge. The more kids like that, the more power the diversity bureaucrats possess.
The diversicrats look at everything in terms of how it produces more jobs, programs and influence for… themselves. The Asian kids, by and large, don’t produce swag for the diversicrats… and are thus expendable.
Here are some of my previous posts addressing Cobra on this issue.
Dan Golden states “that if Asian Americans, are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Click on:
http://www.discriminations.us/2008/01/new_report_asians_not_whites_g.html#comments
New Report: Asians, Not Whites, Gain When AA Ends
========================
Hey Cobra,
A reminder for you.
THE ONLY THING YOU ARE “SETTING STRAIGHT” IS THAT YOU ARE A RACIST AND A LIAR!
You are the racist, since you, Cobra, are asking for race preferences and preferential treatment for blacks by playing the race card, which will be the cause of your quick demise. Jews and Asian Americans are NOT ASKING for preferential treatment based on race, religion and ethnicity, even though they faced prejudice and hatred from you and your ilk. That’s the difference.
Cobra, you have COMPLETE DISREGARD for the truth.
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/11/preferences_as_a_zerosum_game.html
Preferences As A Zero-Sum Game
It really shouldn’t surprise anyone (though it still does) that giving preferences to some applicants based on their race places a burden on other applicants because of their race. Nor at this late date should it surprise anyone (though it still does) that the primary beneficiaries of eliminating preferences to minorities are not whites but another minority group, Asian-Americans.
Asian-American enrollment at Berkeley has increased since California voters banned affirmative action in college admissions. Berkeley accepted 4,122 Asian-American applicants for this fall’s freshman class — nearly 42% of the total admitted. That is up from 2,925 in 1997, or 34.6%, the last year before the ban took effect. Similarly, Asian-American undergraduate enrollment at the University of Washington rose to 25.4% in 2004 from 22.1% in 1998, when voters in that state prohibited affirmative action in college admissions.
The University of Michigan may be poised for a similar leap in Asian-American enrollment, now that voters in that state have banned affirmative action. The Center for Equal Opportunity study found that, among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10% of Asian-Americans, 14% of whites, 88% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks. Asian applicants to the university’s medical school also faced a higher admissions bar than any other group.
Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,
http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don’t forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.
Now, as Dan Golden reports in front-page article in the Wall Street Journal, discrimination against Asians is coming under increased scrutiny. A Chinese-American student has filed a complaint against Princeton, and the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education has agreed to investigate.
Click on the following link to listen to Golden’s interview on his book, The Price of Admission.
http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20060906/pod-wsjgolden/pod-wsjgolden.mp3
He talks about legacy, sports, and rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions to the Ivies.
Dan Golden has a chapter about the discrimination against Asian Americans, who have to meet a higher standard of admissions (SAT scores as much as 125 points higher) and a higher holistic criteria (motivations, creativity, ECs). He states that Asian American faced the same discrimination Jews did. Asians faced a higher bar. He talks about the stereotypes of Asians , which he states “that if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Sports help rich affluent whites, not URMs, and not poor whites in elite college admissions in sports such as crew, squash, fencing, etc., in preps such as Groton and Andover.
From Daniel Golden’s The Price of Admission, Chapter 7, “The New Jews, Asian
Americans Need Not Apply”:
………
“In 1990, federal investigators concluded that UCLA’s graduate department in mathematics
had discriminated against Asian applicants.”
………
“ most elite universities have maintained a triple standard in college admissions,
setting the bar highest for Asians, next for whites, and lowest for blacks and Hispanics.
According to a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers, an Asian American applicant
needs to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants just to have the same chance
of admission to an elite university. (Being an alumni child, by contrast, confers a 160-point
advantage.) Yale records show that entering Asian American freshmen averaged a 1493
SAT score in 1999-2000, 1496 in 2000-2001, and 1482 in 2001-2. For the same three years,
the average for white freshmen was about 40 points lower. Black and Hispanic freshmen
lagged another 100-125 points below whites. A Yale spokesman attributed the Asian-white
gap to more whites being recruited athletes, and said Asians and whites are held to the same
academic standards.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Federal investigators also turned up stereotyping by Harvard admissions evaluators. Possibly
reflecting a lack of cultural understanding, Harvard evaluators ranked Asian American candidates
on average below whites in “personal qualities.” In comments written in applicants’ files, Harvard
admissions staff repeatedly described Asian Americans as “being quiet/shy, science/math oriented,
and hard workers,” the report found. One reader summed up an Asian applicant this way: “He’s
quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“He [ Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt] added that the stereotype of the quiet Asian student
is “really a strange notion. My Asian American students are very lively. They take leadership
positions. They’re not at all shy or reticent.”
. . . . . . . . . .
“Now as then, a lack of preferences can be a convenient guise for racism. Much as college
administrators justified anti-Jewish policies with ethnic stereotypes — one Yale dean in 1918 termed
the typical Jewish student a “greasy grind” — so Asians are typecast in college admissions offices
as quasi-robots programmed by their parents to ace math and science tests. Asked why Vanderbilt
poured resources into recruiting Jews instead of Asians, a former administrator told me, “Asians are very good students, but they don’t provide the kind of intellectual environment that Jewish students provide.”
. . . . . . . . . .
From chapter 10, “Ending the Preferences of Privilege”:
“Provide equal access for Asian American students and for international students who need
financial aid. If elite colleges were truly committed to socioeconomic diversity, they would regard
the proliferation of outstanding Asian American applicants as an opportunity, not a problem. They would rush to propel into the higher ranks of American society a group of students who not only
boast outstanding test scores and grades but also are immigrants or immigrants’ children from low or middle-income families that sacrificed in hope of a better life for the next generation. Asian
American students also bring a variety of cultures, languages, and religions to stir the campus melting pot. Colleges should counter anti-Asian bias through sensitivity training sessions and hiring more Asian American admissions deans, directors, and staff.”
. . . . . . . . . .
Golden states “that if Asian Americans, are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down” by the Ivies and elites. He calls the issue a “scandal” and a “shame”.
Posted by: E | February 3, 2008 6:11 PM
Watch the piece by Martin Bashir of ABC’s Nightline on WSJ’s Dan Golden and his book, The Price of Admission. Jian Li, the Yale student, who filed a complaint against Princeton for discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions with the US Education Dept., Office for Civil Rights is also interviewed.
PLEASE CLICK ON:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2625731
Students can file discrimination complaints with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100
1-800-421-3481
FAX: (202) 245-6840; TDD: (877) 521-2172
Online complaint form: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html
E-mail: email hidden; JavaScript is required
Web: http://www.ed.gov/ocr
OFCCP complaint form (complete and file at OFCCP regional office nearest you).
You must file your complaint within 180 days after receiving the rejection letter or other form of discrimination.
If the government takes no action, you will need to hire an attorney to sue.
=============================
Please read this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116321461412620634-lMyQjAxMDE2NjEzMTIxMTE0Wj.html
November 11, 2006
PAGE ONE
Is Admissions Bar
Higher for Asians
At Elite Schools?
School Standards Are Probed
Even as Enrollment Increases;
A Bias Claim at Princeton
By DANIEL GOLDEN
November 11, 2006; Page A1
Though Asian-Americans constitute only about 4.5% of the U.S. population, they typically account for anywhere from 10% to 30% of students at many of the nation’s elite colleges.
Even so, based on their outstanding grades and test scores, Asian-Americans increasingly say their enrollment should be much higher — a contention backed by a growing body of evidence.
Whether elite colleges give Asian-American students a fair shake is becoming a big concern in college-admissions offices. Federal civil-rights officials are investigating charges by a top Chinese-American student that he was rejected by Princeton University last spring because of his race and national origin.
Meanwhile, voter attacks on admissions preferences for other minority groups — as well as research indicating colleges give less weight to high test scores of Asian-American applicants — may push schools to boost Asian enrollment. Tuesday, Michigan voters approved a ballot measure striking down admissions preferences for African-Americans and Hispanics. The move is expected to benefit Asian applicants to state universities there — as similar initiatives have done in California and Washington.
If the same measure is passed in coming years in Illinois, Missouri and Oregon — where opponents of such preferences say they plan to introduce it — Asian-American enrollment likely would climb at selective public universities in those states as well.
During the Michigan campaign, a group that opposes affirmative action released a study bolstering claims that Asian students are held to a higher standard. The study, by the Center for Equal Opportunity, in Virginia, found that Asian applicants admitted to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score of 1400 on the 400-1600 scale then in use. That was 50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks.
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said universities are “legally vulnerable” to challenges from rejected Asian-American applicants.
Princeton, where Asian-Americans constitute about 13% of the student body, faces such a challenge. A spokesman for the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights said it is investigating a complaint filed by Jian Li, now a 17-year-old freshman at Yale University. Despite racking up the maximum 2400 score on the SAT and 2390 — 10 points below the ceiling — on SAT2 subject tests in physics, chemistry and calculus, Mr. Li was spurned by three Ivy League universities, Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Office for Civil Rights initially rejected Mr. Li’s complaint due to “insufficient” evidence. Mr. Li appealed, citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades. The office notified him late last month that it would look into the case.
His complaint seeks to suspend federal financial assistance to Princeton until the university “discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms by eliminating race preferences, legacy preferences, and athlete preferences.” Legacy preference is the edge most elite colleges, including Princeton, give to alumni children. The Office for Civil Rights has the power to terminate such financial aid but usually works with colleges to resolve cases rather than taking enforcement action.
Mr. Li, who emigrated to the U.S. from China as a 4-year-old and graduated from a public high school in Livingston, N.J., said he hopes his action will set a precedent for other Asian-American students. He wants to “send a message to the admissions committee to be more cognizant of possible bias, and that the way they’re conducting admissions is not really equitable,” he said.
Princeton spokeswoman Cass Cliatt said the university is aware of the complaint and will provide the Office for Civil Rights with information it has requested. Princeton has said in the past that it considers applicants as individuals and doesn’t discriminate against Asian-Americans.
When elite colleges began practicing affirmative action in the late 1960s and 1970s, they gave an admissions boost to Asian-American applicants as well as blacks and Hispanics. As the percentage of Asian-Americans in elite schools quickly overtook their slice of the U.S. population, many colleges stopped giving them preference — and in some cases may have leaned the other way.
In 1990, a federal investigation concluded that Harvard University admitted Asian-American applicants at a lower rate than white students despite the Asians’ slightly stronger test scores and grades. Federal investigators also found that Harvard admissions staff had stereotyped Asian-American candidates as quiet, shy and oriented toward math and science. The government didn’t bring charges because it concluded it was Harvard’s preferences for athletes and alumni children — few of whom were Asian — that accounted for the admissions gap.
The University of California came under similar scrutiny at about the same time. In 1989, as the federal government was investigating alleged Asian-American quotas at UC’s Berkeley campus, Berkeley’s chancellor apologized for a drop in Asian enrollment. The next year, federal investigators found that the mathematics department at UCLA had discriminated against Asian-American graduate school applicants. In 1992, Berkeley’s law school agreed under federal pressure to drop a policy that limited Asian enrollment by comparing Asian applicants against each other rather than the entire applicant pool.
Asian-American enrollment at Berkeley has increased since California voters banned affirmative action in college admissions. Berkeley accepted 4,122 Asian-American applicants for this fall’s freshman class — nearly 42% of the total admitted. That is up from 2,925 in 1997, or 34.6%, the last year before the ban took effect. Similarly, Asian-American undergraduate enrollment at the University of Washington rose to 25.4% in 2004 from 22.1% in 1998, when voters in that state prohibited affirmative action in college admissions.
The University of Michigan may be poised for a similar leap in Asian-American enrollment, now that voters in that state have banned affirmative action. The Center for Equal Opportunity study found that, among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10% of Asian-Americans, 14% of whites, 88% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks. Asian applicants to the university’s medical school also faced a higher admissions bar than any other group.
Julie Peterson, spokeswoman for the University of Michigan, said the study was flawed because many applicants take the ACT test instead of the SAT, and standardized test scores are only one of various tools used to evaluate candidates. “I utterly reject the conclusion” that the university discriminates against Asian-Americans, she said. Asian-Americans constitute 12.6% of the university’s undergraduates.
Jonathan Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, said most elite colleges’ handling of Asian applicants has become fairer in recent years. Mr. Reider, a former Stanford admissions official, said Stanford staffers were dismayed 20 years ago when an internal study showed they were less likely to admit Asian applicants than comparable whites. As a result, he said, Stanford strived to eliminate unconscious bias and repeated the study every year until Asians no longer faced a disadvantage.
Last month, Mr. Reider participated in a panel discussion at a college-admissions conference. It was titled, “Too Asian?” and explored whether colleges treat Asian applicants differently.
Precise figures of Asian-American representation at the nation’s top schools are hard to come by. Don Joe, an attorney and activist who runs Asian-American Politics, an Internet site that tracks enrollment, puts the average proportion of Asian-Americans at 25 top colleges at 15.9% in 2005, up from 10% in 1992.
Still, he said, he is hearing more complaints “from Asian-American parents about how their children have excellent grades and scores but are being rejected by the most selective colleges. It appears to be an open secret.”
Mr. Li, who said he was in the top 1% of his high-school class and took five advanced placement courses in his senior year, left blank the questions on college applications about his ethnicity and place of birth. “It seemed very irrelevant to me, if not offensive,” he said. Mr. Li, who has permanent resident status in the U.S., did note that his citizenship, first language and language spoken at home were Chinese.
Along with Yale, he won admission to the California Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. He said four schools — Princeton, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania — placed him on their waiting lists before rejecting him. “I was very close to being accepted at these schools,” he said. “I was thinking, had my ethnicity been different, it would have put me over the top. Even if race had just a marginal effect, it may have disadvantaged me.”
He ultimately focused his complaint against Princeton after reading a 2004 study by three Princeton researchers concluding that an Asian-American applicant needed to score 50 points higher on the SAT than other applicants to have the same change of admission to an elite university.
“As an Asian-American and a native of China, my chances of admission were drastically reduced,” Mr. Li claims in his complaint.
Write to Daniel Golden at email hidden; JavaScript is required
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116321461412620634.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]
Wait a minute. The argument for affirmative action isn’t that there is
intentional discrimination vs. certain groups, but that “institutional
racism” exists. And the only evidence offered of such institutional
racism are statistics demonstrating unequal outcomes.
Bottom line: Asians must show intent, while other less successful
minorities need only show that they have been less successful. Time to
call affirmative action what it is: racism.
I wouldn’t get too worked up about this editorial considering the source. It was written by a bunch of “snot-nosed” Leftists who think they have the right to decide who should be allowed to enter the hallowed halls of Harvard.
Colleges still have a vested interest in promoting diversity and should be able to use whatever criteria they deem necessary in order to do so.
“Whatever criteria they deem necessary.” First sniff those words to get their bouquet. Now take a sip and roll those words around in your mouth to get their full flavor. That is what vintage totalitarianism tastes like. They know what is best for society and they will do whatever it takes to achieve their ends.
The study’s authors commented that the “elimination [of affirmative action] also affected the education and experience of the majority…by limiting the expression of viewpoints in and out of the classroom.”
So minorities think differently than whites (and Asians). This same statement said by a non-Leftist would be prima facie evidence of racism.
Diversity is vital to the primary goal of a university: not only to train the brightest minds of academia,
Clearly if that was the case they would be admitting more Asians not less.
but also to prepare them to lead in a world where different races play major roles. To accomplish that,universities have the right to use whatever criteria they think fair to assemble a well-rounded and diverse class.
Once again they use those same words to justify their biased actions. They will decide what is fair. It makes one wonder what these supposed brilliant students are taught at Harvard.
Colleges advocate the importance of applicants’ community involvement, leadership capabiliities (sic), distinction in extracurricular activities, and work experience in their admissions process. To examine the serious charge of racial discrimination, researchers should evaluate the contributions of applicants of different races to these other factors of admission as well.
Luckily it is Leftists who made such a statement; otherwise they would be accused of being prejudiced.
As disheartening as evidence of admissions discrimination against Asian Americans would be, the pursuit of diversity necessarily requires colleges to make some harsh decisions about whom to accept. When there are more applicants than there are spots in each incoming class, colleges must discriminate in some fashion to have a talented and diverse student body.
This is the third time in this short editorial that they have come back to these same words. Colleges must discriminate in order to practice affirmative action. However, their statement is only half true. Colleges do not have to discriminate to have a talented student body. However they must discriminate to have a diverse student body.
Kim writes:
>>>”Bottom line: Asians must show intent, while other less successful
minorities need only show that they have been less successful. Time to
call affirmative action what it is: racism.”
You’d better get your “model minority” data straight first before you, as Brother E does, goes off on this Asian-Supremacy kick.
>>>”According to the 2000 Census, Americans from some Asian backgrounds — for example, people from Cambodia and Laos — are significantly less likely than most other Americans to hold college degrees, more likely to have had no formal education, and more likely to live in poverty.”
http://www.searac.org/pr-2000-census.html
What? This can’t be true! Here at Discriminations, ALL ASIAN-AMERICANS are presumed omniscient, incredibly studious and without academic peer.
Someone’s not following the script, apparently. Read on–
>>>”Attainment of Bachelor’s Degrees: Over half of Hmong-American women — members of a group renowned for their partnership with the U.S. during the Vietnam War — have had no formal education at all, compared to a national average for all Americans at just over one percent. Only about five percent of women in that community have college degrees, compared to nearly a quarter of Americans overall who are aged twenty-five and over. On the opposite ends of the spectrum among Southeast Asian Americans, nearly twenty percent of Vietnamese adults hold bachelor’s degrees, and only eight percent of them have had no formal education. Cambodian and Laotian Americans tend to fall between the two extremes. Just over nine percent of Cambodian adults hold bachelor’s degrees or higher, as do over seven and a half percent of Laotian Americans.”
http://www.searac.org/pr-2000-census.html
What?!!? That Cobra must be up to his old treacherous ways again! How DARE he quote some shadow group like the “Southeast Asia Resource Action Center.”
>>>”Per Capita Income: Three Southeast Asian American groups (Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian) had average per-person incomes below $12,000, and Hmong Americans had the lowest average per-person income of any ethnic group described by the 2000 Census: $6,613. Vietnamese Americans had an average per-person income of just over $15,000, compared with over $21,000 for the U.S. population considered overall.”
http://www.searac.org/pr-2000-census.html
SCANDALOUS! Cobra, are you trying to say that there are Asian-American groups making less money than–brace yourselves–
African-Americans!!!
(note: Readers might want to monitor the EMS switchboard–certain prolific posters may feel a wee bit light-headed after these truths come to light)
>>>”Poverty Rates: In 1999, over 29 percent of Cambodian Americans, 37 percent of Hmong Americans, 19 percent of Laotian Americans, and 16 percent of Vietnamese Americans lived under the poverty line, compared with just over 12 percent of the U.S. population overall. Although clear challenges remain for the communities, their economic status improved dramatically between 1989 and 1999. In 1989, 47 percent of Cambodians, 66 percent of Hmong, 67 percent of Laotians, and 34 percent of Vietnamese in the U.S. lived in poverty, according to the Census Bureau.”
http://www.searac.org/pr-2000-census.html
I could go on and on, people. But I’m merciful. You just all need to stop with this “All-Asians-uber alles” type rhetoric, because the FACTS are not on your side. If you want to stratify and SEGREGATE the Asian-American population into their unique countries of origin and make sweeping ethnic generalizations, that’s not great either, but it’s certainly a far more ACCURATE description of what is actually occuring in America.
–Cobra
I could go on and on, people. But I’m merciful. You just all need to stop with this “All-Asians-uber alles” type rhetoric, because the FACTS are not on your side. If you want to stratify and SEGREGATE the Asian-American population into their unique countries of origin and make sweeping ethnic generalizations, that’s not great either, but it’s certainly a far more ACCURATE description of what is actually occuring in America.
So Cobra, since all Asians aren’t successful, then it makes even less sense that Harvard is discriminating against them. Shouldn’t they have, in the name of diversity, an affirmative action program for Cambodians, Hmongs, and Laotians?
Richard,
Does this mean you’ve seen the light, and now join me in supporting Affirmative Action?
–Cobra
Hi, Cobra. Even though our political views are shall we say somewhat different, I always enjoy conversing with you. I will take your response as a rhetorical question because I don’t see how from my comment you could come to the conclusion that I was advocating support for affirmative action. What I was doing of course was following up on your observation that Asians were not a monolithic group, which of course is true. In fact there isn’t any group for which that is true. That is why it is not logical (not fair) to try and bestow benefits (or penalties) to anyone based on the group(s) he/she is a member of. By helping one individual based on his group membership you are hurting another (possibly more deserving) individual based on his membership in a different group. The only point that I was making is that by discriminating against Asians as a group, it appears that Harvard was violating the diversity principle that it claims to be championing.
Actually, given the views that you have expressed on this blog, I find it hard to believe that you should champion diversity unless you are using it as a synonym for black. Given the history of slavery and discrimination against blacks why should other groups benefit equally from diversity when they did not have these same experiences? I could understand (but not agree with) your belief that blacks should be given special privileges to make up for past injustices. But why should other groups be able to piggyback off of the unique experiences of blacks in the US? It may be emotionally satisfying to punish whites for the sins of (some of) their ancestors, but it is not a way to achieve a society that will transcend discrimination. Discriminating against a group today for what happened in the past will only lead to a similar result against those who are now benefiting from it today. Or to put it more simply you don’t end discrimination by practicing discrimination against a different group.
*THESE ARE SOME OF THE THE REASONS WHY RACE AND ETHNIC BASED AA NEVER REALLY WORKED.*
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i25/25b00701.htm?utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en
*QUOTES:*
*If we are now going to recognize that even some black people — people like Obama — are not “like blacks,” how can Mexican-Americans and Cambodian-Americans be “like blacks”? Can the latter be eligible for entitlements that were assigned largely on the basis of a “black model” that suddenly seems not to apply even to all black people? If black people with immigrant backgrounds are less appropriate targets of affirmative-action and “diversity” programs than other black people, a huge issue can no longer be avoided: What claims for special treatment can be made for nonblack populations with an immigrant base? Can the genie of the immigrant/nonimmigrant distinction be put back in the bottle, or are we to generate new, group-specific theoretical justifications for each group? That prospect is an intimidating one, trapping us by our habit of defining disadvantaged groups ethnoracially*
*The Asian-American section of our color-conscious system is even more anachronistic. There are historical reasons for the relatively weak class position of immigrants from Cambodia and the Philippines, but our category of Asian-American conceals the differences between those groups and those who trace their ancestry to Korea, whose adult immigrants to the United States are overwhelmingly college graduates. Institutions eager to assist the poorest immigrants sometimes do so through the hyper-ethnic step of breaking down the Asian category, enabling them to establish programs for Cambodians but not for Japanese. For example, the undergraduate-admissions forms for the University of California system will soon ask Asian and Pacific-Islander applicants to classify themselves in 23 ethnic categories.*
cobra keeps telling us about the high poverty rates of the Hmong and Cambodians and their low educational status. Like every individual story, it varies from Cambodian to Cambodian. Those Cambodians who grew up here have higher average test scores than blacks . The next generation of Camboidans and Hmongs will have academic attributes much closer to the Chinese and Koreans than that of blacks. I support economic preferences but not racial preferences. So what Cobra is saying is full of nonsense.
Hey Cobra, read this thread.
http://www.discriminations.us/2008/02/more_handwringing_orthodoxy_fr.html#comments
More Handwringing Orthodoxy From The College Board
==========================
John said,
[Does Mr. Packer have any evidence, beyond the “underrepresentation,” that black students “are not receiving encouragement and support”? Who does he believe is guilty (and if there truly is a “true and startling lack of equity,” it is guilt we are talking about) of not providing the missing “encouragement and support”? Teachers? School administrators? Parents? Peers? If you’re going to point your finger at shortcomings in equitable treatment, it at least ought to be clear whom you’re pointing at…..Finally, it would be nice to know whether Mr. Packer believes that Asian-Americans, who are no doubt “overrepresented” among the high achievers, have been receiving a disproportionately and hence inequitably high level of “encouragement and support.”…..Perhaps what the College Board should propose is an Equiable Support and Encouragement Redistribution Act, taking some equitable treatment away from those who receive an excess of it and redistributing it to those who are not given enough.]
John, it is interesting that you make note of the Asian Americans regarding this item, since the article did not highlight the performance of Asian Americans, but only blacks,Latinos and whites. Asian Americans are “overrepresented” in the numbers of the HIGHEST performers on the AP Tests, NOT BECAUSE, they have been receiving a disproportionately and hence inequitably high level of “encouragement and support.”. I agree with you. Now, the AP Tests will be devalued as a metric for evaluating proficiency and achievement, as are all of standardized testing, simply because they cannot achieve equal results or equal outcomes among the racial and ethnic groups by using the same lame and apologetic EXCUSES.
Please read the NY Times article on this today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/education/14exam.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
Larger Share of Students Succeed on A.P. Tests
ON A RELATED TOPIC, HERE ARE THE ACTUAL RACIAL TEST SCORE GAP NUMBERS ON THE SAT I TESTS FOR 1995. THESE RACIAL GAPS HAVE NOT DECREASED IN RECENT YEARS, BUT IN FACT HAVE INCREASED.
From the book, “America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible” by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, Simom and Schuster, 1997 in Chapter 14, titled “Higher Learning”, in Table 4 labeled, “Number and The Percent of Black, White, and Asian Students with High SAT Scores, 1981 and 1995”: Source; The College Board, Ethnic Data on Scoring, 1981 and 1995, the figures and percentages for each score level are charted.
The Racial Scoring Gaps in the SAT I Math and SAT I Verbal Tests (Black-White, Black-Asian, and White-Asian SAT I Test Score Gaps) are below for 1995 and these Gaps have not narrowed since. In fact, they have become much wider.
For example, in 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Math, 107 Blacks scored between 750 and 800, 509 Blacks scored between 700 and 749, 1,437 Blacks scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Blacks was 2,053 or 2.0% of all Black test takers. Total > 700 was 616 or 0.6% or six tenths of 1 percent. Total > 750 was 107 or 0.1% or one tenth of 1 percent.
In 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers, in the Verbal, 184 Blacks scored between 700 and 800, 465 Blacks scored between 650 and 699, and 1,115 Blacks scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 1,764 or 1.7% of Black test takers. Total > 700 was 184 or 0.15% or less than two tenths of 1 percent.
In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 9,519 Whites scored between 750 and 800, 29,774 Whites scored between 700 and 749, and 51,306 Whites between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Whites was 90,599 or 13.4% of all White test takers. Total > 700 was 39,293 or 5.8%. Total > 750 was 9,519 or 1.4%.
In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Verbal, 8,978 Whites scored between 700 and 800, 19,272 scored between 650 and 699, and 36,700 Whites scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 64,950 or 9.6%.Total > 700 was 8,978 or 1.3%.
In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 3,827 Asians scored between 750 and 800, 7,758 Asians scored between 700 and 749, and 9,454 Asians scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Asians was 21,039 or 25.8%. Total > 700 was 11,585 or 14.2%. Total > 750 was 3,827 or 4.7%.
In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800, 2,513 Asians scored between 650 and 699, and 4,221 Asians scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 8,190 or 10%. Total > 700 was 1,476 or 1.8%.
Therefore, in reference to the above data for 1995, Asians out perform the other two groups at the highest levels of the SAT 1 scores in terms of rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and above in both the Math and the Verbal of the SAT 1 Test. In fact, in the 1999 data given by the College Board: Performance by Ethnic Groups, the rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and 750 and above has risen for the Asian group both independent of and relative to the other two groups.
In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers.
There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total number of White test takers.
There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers.
Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%).
Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).
More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B
More SAT data may be found in Appendix B. There, you will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity
Posted by: E | February 14, 2008 9:03 AM
I wonder when minority community leaders will cease the unholy trade of race preferences in lieu of education. I say leaders because 75% of black parents support vouchers, they recognize this abombination. But minority community leaders don’t have their contituents interests at heart, they have their own. Their actions prove they are perfectly comfortable failing to educate children as the price of maintaining their electoral coalition which is hugely dependent on the education system for votes, money, activists, and indocrination.
I wonder if Obama’s campaign may effect this in the black community. Black leaders disproportionately endorsed Clinton, primarily due her institutional power and past political favors. Yet those endorsements have virtually no effect on black voting patterns. Maybe this is a step toward replacing the black leadership in this country which is out of step with its constituents.
Posted by: MJ | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM
So how does one account for the advantage enjoyed by a mixed white and Chinese student? Are they doubly advantaged?
Posted by: Loki on the run | February 14, 2008 8:58 PM
E wrote: “More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.”
That is only partly true. The raw data or the decile cohorts are no longer published, but close assumptions of the data can be extracted from the published information via the statistical data given.
Further more, it is reasonable to presume that the data is no longer disclosed because it might be used against the methods and activists in affirmative action politics today. The reports have always shown a race gap for as long as comparative data has been collected. It has always been politically incorrect and has been published nontheless in order to proove the necessity for action.
I believe it is no coincidence, that the change in strategies occured in a time when criticism of special need politics ceased to be a taboo. For as long as any criticism of black and minority politics was an untouchable taboo the protagonists were safe from being challenged on the topics of effectivity and objective measures. The complaints about the existence of the race gap were seen as proof of further need and nobody dared to question the methods implied. Now that criticism is no longer a taboo, the apparatchicks face danger from two sides: the question of justification in respect to the 14th amandment and the question of effect on behalf of the people whom they are supposed to help. Minority politics have always been argued for as a crude but effective method where the violation of the civil rights of white and asian people have been justified as necessary to help black people and other minorities overcome the rage cap. But what if that is just another lie, what if minority politics is in fact not helping minorities?
It seems that is a painful question, too painful to be answered. In a strange coincidence the minority poilitcs representatives and instituions applying the criticised methods have almost simultaniously started to hide away any information that might help proove just how useful minority politics really are at about the time when critics were starting to tear down the taboo.
In the most recent publication of the Collegeboard, the Total Profile Report of 2007, there is enough Information to partially retrieve the numbers you were looking for. Of course, this cannot replace the actual raw data, but it will give a reasonable estimate of what to expect.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2007/national-report.pdf
On the ethnic analysis page we find the results for the three subtests as averages and standard deviations (table 8).
Critical Reading:
Asians: Avg 514 SD 124
Whites: Avg 527 SD 102
Blacks: Avg 433 SD 97
Mathematics:
Asians: Avg 578 SD 123
Whites: Avg 534 SD 102
Blacks: Avg 429 SD 97
Writing:
Asians: Avg 513 SD 121
Whites: Avg 518 SD 100
Blacks: Avg 425 SD 93
The large sample sizes of 72109 Asians, 828038 Whites and 159849 Blacks allow for a reasonable precision with the statistical standard errors of .46 .11 and .23 respectively for asians, whites and blacks diminishing when building larger clusters.
When looking at the top end of the distributions, it is important to not forget, that a lower average can easily be compensated by a greater standard deviation. This happens to the asian group in the critical reading and writing disciplines. In both cases the difference in average ammounts to 10,4% and 4,1% of the Asian Standard deviation and therefore the “rank” is reversed when focusing on the top end of the scale.
Further more it is noticable, that the standard deviations are very consistent and that the black group average is consistantly about one standard deviation below the white group average.
Looking at the cohorts of +700 and +750:
1. Presuming normal distribution, the cohort 700+ is situated at a x SD for each group and discipline:
Critical reading:
Asians: 1.5
Whites: 1.7
Blacks: 2.8
Mathematics:
Asians: 1.0
Whites: 1.6
Blacks: 2.8
Writing:
Asians: 1.5
Whites: 1.8
Blacks: 3.0
Therefore the percentage of each group in the 700+ cohort can be assumed at:
Critical reading:
Asians: 6.7 %
Whites: 4.5 %
Blacks: 0.3 %
Mathematics:
Asians: 16.1 %
Whites: 5.2 %
Blacks: 0.3 %
Writing:
Asians: 6.1 %
Whites: 3.4 %
Blacks: 0.2 %
And in absolute numbers of students who achieved more than 700 points according to group sample size:
Critical reading:
Asians: ~ 4800
Whites: ~ 37200
Blacks: ~ 470
Mathematics:
Asians: ~ 11600
Whites: ~ 42900
Blacks: ~ 410
Writing:
Asians: ~ 4400
Whites: ~ 28500
Blacks: ~ 250
2. Presuming normal distribution, the cohort 750+ is situated at a x SD for each group and discipline:
Critical reading:
Asians: 1.9
Whites: 2.2
Blacks: 3.3
Mathematics:
Asians: 1.4
Whites: 2.1
Blacks: 3.3
Writing:
Asians: 2.0
Whites: 2.3
Blacks: 3.5
Therefore the percentage of each group in the 750+ cohort can be assumed at:
Critical reading:
Asians: 2.9 %
Whites: 1.4 %
Blacks: 0.1 %
Mathematics:
Asians: 8.1 %
Whites: 1.7 %
Blacks: 0.05%
Writing:
Asians: 2.5 %
Whites: 1.0 %
Blacks: 0.02 %
And in absolute numbers of students who achieved more than 750 points according to group sample size:
Critical reading:
Asians: ~ 2000
Whites: ~ 11900
Blacks: ~ 90
Mathematics:
Asians: ~ 5800
Whites: ~ 14200
Blacks: ~ 75
Writing:
Asians: ~ 1800
Whites: ~ 8400
Blacks: ~ 40
For the sake of camparison to your variable of “outperforming at the score of 750 or above”:
Critical reading:
Asians outperform whites at a ratio of 2.0:1
Whites outperform blacks at a ratio of 26.5:1 *
Asians outperform blacks at a ratio of 52.4:1 *
Mathematics:
Asians outperform whites at a ratio of 4.7:1
Whites outperform blacks at a ratio of 36.5:1 *
Asians outperform blacks at a ratio of 172.6:1 *
Writing:
Asians outperform whites at a ratio of 2.5:1
Whites outperform blacks at a ratio of 42.8:1 *
Asians outperform blacks at a ratio of 105.5:1 *
* The problem of statistical error invalidates these numbers due to the comparatively very small sample size for african americans. Statistical inacuracies would amount to the asian-black outperformance ratio in mathematics presumably falling somewhere between 100 and 300. This inacuracy thereby renders the values useless and meaningless.
I do not believe these numbers to carry any meaning in detail, but they do show a rough general tendency: that the race gaps are widening- the asian-white gap increasing by roughly one third and the asian-black gap roughly quadrupling within a decade. Although I have derious doubt concerning the accuracy of these ratios, I believe it is irrelevant to the basic problem at what speed the race gap is widening. The basic problem is, that the measures that have been and are being implied for almost half a century either have no effect at all or are contraproductive in helping the majority of african americans.
For the discipline of mathematics, where the gaps have shown to be greatest, the decile scores should be approximately:
Decile | Asians | Whites | Blacks
9. | 736 | 665 | 554
8. | 682 | 620 | 511
7. | 643 | 588 | 480
6. | 610 | 560 | 454
5. | 578 | 534 | 429
4. | 547 | 509 | 405
3. | 514 | 481 | 379
2. | 475 | 449 | 348
1. | 421 | 404 | 305
The shocking aspect of this is not the difference in the top deciles, but rather that the white-black difference remains in low deciles. The differences in the first deciles of whites and asians converge to a presumable minimum at about 400 Points. The tragedy is, that about 40% of african americans fall below that minimum and that the cohort of 350 points and below is almost exclusively african american. The real problem here is, that minority programs have always just concentrated on exploiting the low average of african americans to attaining a bonus for the elite whilst ignoring the broad community. I know this is a grave accusation, but the expectable results of this would be a thriving black elite that is well established in society and ecconomy profiting from minority politics and a large protion of black people who are in social, ecconomical and educational aspects literally falling off the bottom end of the scale. There, I believe, lies the rub.
Posted by: Andrew | February 15, 2008 9:43 AM
Andrew, I commend you for your outstanding statistical analysis of recently published racial SAT I score numbers by the College Board. I also agree with you on the importance and relevance of your findings.
Good work, Andrew!
Posted by: e | February 15, 2008 6:21 PM
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
Almost No Blacks Among the Top Scorers
on the Scholastic Assessment Test
It is important to explain how the SAT racial scoring gap challenges affirmative action policies at the nation’s highest-ranked colleges and universities. Under the SAT scoring system, most non-minority students hoping to qualify for admission to any of the nation’s 25 highest-ranked universities and 25 highest-ranked liberal arts colleges need to score at least 700 on each portion of the SAT.
For admission to the very highest ranked, brand-name schools such as Princeton or MIT, applicants need scores of 750 to be considered for admission. Yet, as we shall see, only a minute percentage of black test takers score at these levels. Thus, if high-ranking colleges and universities were to abandon their policies of race-sensitive admissions, they will be choosing their first-year students from an applicant pool in which there will be practically no blacks.
Let’s be more specific about the SAT racial gap among high-scoring applicants. In 2005, 153,132 African Americans took the SAT test. They made up 10.4 percent of all SAT test takers. But only 1,132 African-American college-bound students scored 700 or above on the math SAT and only 1,205 scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT. Nationally, more than 100,000 students of all races scored 700 or above on the math SAT and 78,025 students scored 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Thus, in this top-scoring category of all SAT test takers, blacks made up only 1.1 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the math test and only 1.5 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher on the verbal SAT.
If we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the statistics and compare just white and black students, we find that 5.8 percent of all white SAT test takers scored 700 or above on the verbal portion of the test. But only 0.79 percent of all black SAT test takers scored at this level. Therefore, whites were more than seven times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the verbal SAT. Overall, there are more than 39 times as many whites as blacks who scored at least 700 on the verbal SAT.
On the math SAT, only 0.7 percent of all black test takers scored at least 700 compared to 6.3 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were nine times as likely as blacks to score 700 or above on the math SAT. Overall, there were 45 times as many whites as blacks who scored 700 or above on the math SAT.
If we raise the top-scoring threshold to students scoring 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT — a level equal to the mean score of students entering the nation’s most selective colleges such as Harvard, Princeton, and CalTech — we find that in the entire country 244 blacks scored 750 or above on the math SAT and 363 black students scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Nationwide, 33,841 students scored at least 750 on the math test and 30,479 scored at least 750 on the verbal SAT. Therefore, black students made up 0.7 percent of the test takers who scored 750 or above on the math test and 1.2 percent of all test takers who scored 750 or above on the verbal section.
Once again, if we eliminate Asians and other minorities from the calculations and compare only blacks and whites, we find that 0.2 percent of all black test takers scored 750 or above on the verbal SAT compared to 2.2 percent of all white test takers. Thus, whites were 11 times as likely as blacks to score 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Overall, there were 49 times as many whites as blacks who scored at or above the 750 level.
On the math SAT, only 0.16 percent of all black test takers scored 750 or above compared to 1.8 percent of white test takers. Thus, whites were more than 11 times as likely as blacks to score 750 or above on the math SAT. Overall, there were more than 61 times as many whites as blacks who scored 750 or above on the math section of the SAT.
In a race-neutral competition for the approximately 50,000 places for first-year students at the nation’s 25 top-ranked universities, high-scoring blacks would be buried by a huge mountain of high-scoring non-black students. Today, under prevailing affirmative action admissions policies, there are about 3,000 black first-year students matriculating at these 25 high-ranking universities, about 6 percent of all first-year students at these institutions. But if these schools operated under a strict race-neutral admissions policy where SAT scores were the most important qualifying yardstick, these universities could fill their freshman classes almost exclusively with students who score at the very top of the SAT scoring scale. As shown previously, black students make up at best between 1 and 2 percent of these high-scoring groups.
Looking to the Future
In the Grutter case upholding affirmative action in college admissions, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s decision expressed the goal of eliminating affirmative action over the next 25 years. At the moment there is no evidence that substantial progress toward closing the test scoring gap will occur. Thus, the huge and growing gap in SAT scores, and particularly the scores at the highest levels, becomes one of the nation’s most urgent problems.
Posted by: E | February 18, 2008 1:45 AM
E writes:
>>>”There are historical reasons for the relatively weak class position of immigrants from Cambodia and the Philippines, but our category of Asian-American conceals the differences between those groups and those who trace their ancestry to Korea, whose adult immigrants to the United States are overwhelmingly college graduates.”
and leo cruz writes:
>>>”There are historical reasons for the relatively weak class position of immigrants from Cambodia and the Philippines, but our category of Asian-American conceals the differences between those groups and those who trace their ancestry to Korea, whose adult immigrants to the United States are overwhelmingly college graduates.”
Do you see what they’re both doing, readers?
When presented with statistical FACTS about certain groups of Asian-Americans who are NOT “superior”, and are NOT successful by the very standards both E and Leo Cruz hold up for African-Americans, all of a sudden, there are EXCUSES.
Do you see the irony?
I’ll be fair, at least Leo Cruz attacks EVERYBODY, but all of a sudden E finds himself making EXCUSES for Asian-American failure. Listen to his predictions:
>>>”Those Cambodians who grew up here have higher average test scores than blacks . The next generation of Camboidans and Hmongs will have academic attributes much closer to the Chinese and Koreans than that of blacks.”
Say who, Leo?
And which “blacks” are we talking about?
>>>”This point is illustrated by the results from the table, which show that immigrants as a group actually have a slightly higher college degree attainment rate and a much higher rate of having an advanced degree (medical, law, or doctorate) than do the U.S.-born. On both measures, immigrants from Africa actually have the highest educational achievement rates and they also have the lowest rate of having less than a high school education. African immigrants are also most likely to be in the labor market.
Therefore, it’s clear that immigrants from Africa tend to come from their country’s elite classes.”
http://www.asian-nation.org/immigrant-stats.shtml
>>>”In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologist John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country.
That defies the usual stereotypes of Asian Americans as the only “model minority.” Yet the traditional American narrative has rendered the high academic achievements of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean invisible.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070319/ai_n18740713
I would argue, that based upon the “Rosenberg-scale of negroid authenticity” you can’t get any “blacker” in America than being an immigrant from Africa.
Leo writes:
>>>”So what Cobra is saying is full of nonsense.”
I disagree. So does the late John Ogbu:
>>>”John Ogbu, a University of California anthropologist, says that some oppressed groups defend themselves by adopting values (like scorning academic success) opposed to the majority. He suspects this is true less for voluntary immigrants than for oppressed minorities. This could explain why Koreans or West Indians, in this country voluntarily, do relatively well in school, but Koreans taken to Japan as conquered subjects, or West Indians who settle in England (the colonial motherland) do not.”
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeat_lessons20001011
So it makes PERFECT sense that VOLUNTARY immigrants, usually the best and brightest that a country has to offer, with the resources and family structure intact, would have offspring that succeed academically and financially, as opposed to REFUGEES, or those who had been mired in DOMESTIC OPPRESSION.
That you can’t see BEYOND this is a testiment to YOUR issues with race–
Not mine.
Richard writes:
>>>”What I was doing of course was following up on your observation that Asians were not a monolithic group, which of course is true. In fact there isn’t any group for which that is true. That is why it is not logical (not fair) to try and bestow benefits (or penalties) to anyone based on the group(s) he/she is a member of. By helping one individual based on his group membership you are hurting another (possibly more deserving) individual based on his membership in a different group. The only point that I was making is that by discriminating against Asians as a group, it appears that Harvard was violating the diversity principle that it claims to be championing.”
That’s a valid point, and I would say that I believe that most of the negotiation of this issue should occur on THAT playing field.
In all honesty, I don’t think the true racist takes the time to identify the exact nation of origin or creed of those he or she thinks is inferior, and in a nation mired in ignorance, that’s one of the reasons I would maintain the current Affirmative Action programs, flawed as they may be.
–Cobra
Richard said,
“That is why it is not logical (not fair) to try and bestow benefits (or penalties) to anyone based on the group(s) he/she is a member of. By helping one individual based on his group membership you are hurting another (possibly more deserving) individual based on his membership in a different group. The only point that I was making is that by discriminating against Asians as a group, it appears that Harvard was violating the diversity principle that it claims to be championing.”
============================
Cobra totally ignored Richard’s statement and continues with his “nonsense” for RACE PREFERENCES, WHICH CONSTITUTE AN ABOMINATION AGAINST ALL HUMANITY.
Cobra justifies his ranting and raving for preferential treatment based solely on the color of his black skin by stating, “In all honesty, I don’t think the true racist takes the time to identify the exact nation of origin or creed of those he or she thinks is inferior, and in a nation mired in ignorance, that’s one of the reasons I would maintain the current Affirmative Action programs, flawed as they may be.”
Cobra, whom do you think you are kidding? You are not for real. You are the “true” racist whom you speak of by virtue of your statement above. Look in the mirror, Cobra.
Cobra, please answer these questions.
1. Why should under performing and underachieving rich affluent immigrant blacks or off-springs of immigrant blacks, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean, receive RACIAL PREFERENCES and be beneficiaries of race based AA in our elite schools by being admitted with lowered standards (test scores and GPAs) and a lowered criteria BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKINS??
THIS IS THE CASE AT HARVARD COLLEGE, and the Ivies, where over 70% of the blacks are from the middle to upper economic classes admitted under race based AA. The vast majority of these blacks are admitted with lowered admissions standards compared to the rest of the admitted class at Harvard (or any of the elite schools using racial preferences) and they are not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom race based AA was originally intended to benefit.
2. WHY SHOULD THESE ADMITTED BLACKS (rich affluent underperforming and underachieving) DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED OVER A DIRT POOR CHINESE AMERICAN LIVING IN CHINATOWN, USA OR IN THE SAME BLACK AMERICAN GHETTO, AND WHO OUT PERFORMS HIS BLACK CLASSMATES IN THE SAME GHETTO SCHOOL???
Just examine the performance of Asian Americans in the POOREST neighborhoods in America, especially the Hispanic and black ghettos, where Asian Americans live side by side with blacks and Hispanics in the major cities, such as NYC, and examine the performance of the students on the NYC Public School Reports on test scores, graduation rates, and attendance disaggregated by race and ethniciy, and you will find that the poorest Asian Americans OUT PERFORMED blacks almost without exception in every school in NYC’s poorest districts, while living in the same neighborhoods as blacks, in the same apartment buildings with the same lack of economic resources.
NOTHING JUSTIFIES RACE AND ETHNIC GROUP PREFERENCES IN OUR SOCIETY.
Hey Cobra,
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
READ THE THREAD!
http://www.discriminations.us/2008/01/new_report_asians_not_whites_g.html#comments
New Report: Asians, Not Whites, Gain When AA Ends
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
Race and ethnic group preferences were not justified in Nazi Germany and they are not justified in present day Bosnia.
Cobra, you are flinging horse manure, as usual.
Hey Cobra, how do you explain this one?
Bottom Line:
1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white and Asian children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white and Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
THESE FACTS ARE SAD AND PITIFUL FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE THE TRUTH. THIS IS ONE OF OUR COUNTRY’S MOST URGENT PROBLEMS, YET COBRA IS IN DENIAL!
IN 2003, ONLY 72 BLACKS SCORED OVER 1500 on the SAT I Math and Verbal (combined) test.
Among the overall student population, 13,897 earned scores higher than 1500.
Source: The College Board
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
Almost No Blacks Among the Top Scorers
on the Scholastic Assessment Test
Bottom Line from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:
Thus, the huge and growing gap in SAT scores, and particularly the scores at the highest levels, becomes one of the nation’s most urgent problems.
E writes:
>>>”Cobra totally ignored Richard’s statement and continues with his “nonsense” for RACE PREFERENCES, WHICH CONSTITUTE AN ABOMINATION AGAINST ALL HUMANITY.”
Maybe you should ask Richard if he feels that the sentence–
“That’s a valid point, and I would say that I believe that most of the negotiation of this issue should occur on THAT playing field.”
–is tantamount to “totally ignoring” his statement.
I suppose you ALSO consider AMERICA to be an “abomination against all humanity” because it has employed “race preferences” since its enception.
I support affirmative action because I’m intellectually honest–I know American Society employs racial and gender preferences ANYWAY, and those racial preferences certainly don’t often work in the favor of non-whites and non-males. (Cobra Argument #1)
But since we’re talking about SAT scores and racial preferences, I found a couple of neat articles that fit right in with this discussion:
>>>”The full-page advertisement in the Harvard Crimson a year ago came as no surprise. The text was straightforward: Intelligent, Athletic Egg Donor Needed For Loving Family. You must be at least 5´ 10´´ / Have a 1400+ SAT score / Possess no major family medical issues. It was only the latest in a steady stream of smaller ads with similar messages–“healthy Caucasian,” “dark hair,” “intelligent, kind,” “drug free,” “age between 20 and 30.” But the new ad did cause surprise because the fee offered–$50,000–far exceeded the $3,000 to $8,000 previously promised for egg donations. Clearly, the acquisition of eggs for artificial fertilization had become an expensive proposition for anyone seeking donors with special pedigrees in the belief that intelligence, athletic ability, good looks, and good health would be carried in their genes.”
http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/03/the-eugenic-temptation.html
>>>”Increasingly, college age women are being solicited for their donor eggs on the basis of their desirable genetic traits. In the summer of 2000, the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota, ran an add for egg donors. Preferred donors were women 5 foot six inches or taller, Caucasian, with high ACT or SAT scores, with no genetic illnesses, and extra compensation was offered to those with mathematical, musical, or athletic abilities. The add stated that acceptable donors would be offered as much as $80,000 for their eggs.
Preimplantation genetic screening is another weapon in the eugenics arsenal. This case puts our feet more than half way down the slippery slope. Selection of our offspring has never been easier. Embryonic death has never been more acceptable in our culture. This is eugenics with a vengeance.”
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/genetics/mitchell_2002-03-07.htm
And it isn’t just whites…
>>>”Egg donation, often the last resort for women who cannot conceive, offers a sort of miracle: the ability to choose a donor who has not just a good résumé but also physical traits similar to the prospective mother’s. For many minority or immigrant recipients, it is a treasured chance to pass on an ethnic bloodline and physical characteristics, perhaps helping the child fit in seamlessly. A Korean couple, for example, can request a Korean donor, and doctors say they usually do.
But as egg donation has surged over the past two decades, clinics and donor recruiting agencies say the supply of ethnic minority donors, especially Asians, has not kept pace with demand. For reasons probably involving complex cultural attitudes about fertility and basic marketing principles, Asian eggs are hard to find.
“Oftentimes, it’s not good enough for the Asian groups to even have somebody of half-Asian, half-Caucasian descent,” said Frank Chang, a reproductive endocrinologist at Shady Grove Fertility center. “Generally, we’re lucky if we can find even one potential donor for that person.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801196_pf.html
E here’s your chance to display some INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.
Do you consider the practices in the above three articles “an abomination of all humanity?”
(Hint to readers: I bet I won’t get a straight answer on this one.)
–Cobra
More nonsense from you. I agree with Leo Cruz.
Simply stated, you have yet to post a reputable response to my questions and my posts which stated the facts.
Cobra justifies his ranting and raving for preferential treatment based solely on the color of his black skin by stating, “In all honesty, I don’t think the true racist takes the time to identify the exact nation of origin or creed of those he or she thinks is inferior, and in a nation mired in ignorance, that’s one of the reasons I would maintain the current Affirmative Action programs, flawed as they may be.”
Cobra, whom do you think you are kidding? You are SURELY not for real. You are the “true” racist whom you speak of by virtue of your statement above. Look in the mirror, Cobra.
Cobra, please answer these questions.
1. Why should under performing and underachieving rich affluent immigrant blacks or off-springs of immigrant blacks, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean, receive RACIAL PREFERENCES and be beneficiaries of race based AA in our elite schools by being admitted with lowered standards (test scores and GPAs) and a lowered holistic criteria BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKINS??
THIS IS THE CASE AT HARVARD COLLEGE, and the Ivies, where over 70% of the blacks are from the middle to upper economic classes admitted under race based AA. The vast majority of these blacks are admitted with lowered admissions standards compared to the rest of the admitted class at Harvard (or any of the elite schools using racial preferences) and they are not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom race based AA was originally intended to benefit.
2. WHY SHOULD THESE ADMITTED BLACKS (rich affluent underperforming and underachieving) DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED OVER A DIRT POOR CHINESE AMERICAN BORN LIVING IN CHINATOWN, USA OR IN THE SAME BLACK AMERICAN GHETTO, AND WHO OUTPERFORMS HIS BLACK CLASSMATES IN THE SAME GHETTO SCHOOL AND EVEN HE OUTPERFORMS THE ADMITTED AFFLUENT IMMIGRANT BLACK AA ADMITS, ON THE AVERAGE??
Just examine the performance of Asian Americans in the POOREST neighborhoods in America, especially in the Hispanic and black ghettos, where Asian Americans live side by side with blacks and Hispanics in the major cities, such as NYC, and examine the performance of the students on the NYC Public School Reports on test scores, grades, all academic achievement measures, graduation rates, and attendance disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and you will find that the poorest Asian Americans OUTPERFORMED blacks, on the average, almost without exception in every school in NYC’s poorest districts, while living in the same neighborhoods as blacks, in the same apartment buildings with the same lack of economic resources. These poorest of Asian Americans,which include Cambodians and other S.E. Asians, EVEN OUTPERFORMED THE RICHEST MOST AFFLUENT AND EDUCATED BLACKS, which include the black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, admitted with race preferences to Harvard and the elites.
Why should these most affluent of blacks, underperforming and underachieving be admitted over the more deserving and higher performing poor Chinese American by every metric used, including HOLISTIC CRITERIA used for admissions. Cobra, you cannot justify this with your ranting and raving on these threads.
NOTHING JUSTIFIES RACE AND ETHNIC GROUP PREFERENCES IN OUR SOCIETY.
You are flinging your usual pile of HORSE MANURE. Right, “listen up, readers”. You are not fooling anyone on this forum, regardless of skin color.
Asian Americans are admitted at the lowest rate of any racial or ethnic group, including whites, because of racial preferences.
Blacks are admitted at the highest rates. The black admit rate is 2 times higher, and the white admit rate is also higher than the Asian American admit rate, because of racial preferences, and a de facto anti-Asian quota.
By lowering the admissions standards for URMs (underrepresented minorities, blacks, Latinos, etc.), these schools raise the admissions standards for Asians. Whites are also admitted with lower standards than Asians, on the average, but higher than that of URMs.
Asians, with their overall higher standards for admissions, as an applicant group, on the average relative to the other groups, including whites, are used to compensate for the lowered standards for the admission of the other groups.
Race and ethnic group preferences were not justified in Nazi Germany and they are not justified in present day Bosnia.
RACE PREFERENCES NEVER WORKED IN WORLD HISTORY, NOR WILL THEY EVER WORK IN AMERICA.
Shame on you Cobra for supporting discrimination, and race preferences. This will eventually come back and bite you in the azz, and this hurt you in the long term, whether or not you realize this.
Stop with your horse manure with posting “nonsense” without any basis in truth and/or fact. Please give us all a break, including “readers” of this site.
Hey Cobra, how do you explain this one?
Bottom Line:
1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white and Asian children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white and Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
THESE FACTS ARE SAD AND PITIFUL FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE THE TRUTH. THIS IS ONE OF OUR COUNTRY’S MOST URGENT PROBLEMS, YET COBRA IS IN DENIAL!
IN 2003, ONLY 72 BLACKS SCORED OVER 1500 on the SAT I Math and Verbal (combined) test.
Among the overall student population, 13,897 earned scores higher than 1500.
Source: The College Board
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
Almost No Blacks Among the Top Scorers
on the Scholastic Assessment Test
Bottom Line from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:
Thus, the huge and growing gap in SAT scores, and particularly the scores at the highest levels, becomes one of the nation’s most urgent problems.
You just don’t get it, do you E?
You want to perpetuate this “Asian Supremacy” mythology, don’t you?
You’re in America, E. Wake up. One Caucasian Elite School donor egg is worth as much as TEN to TWENTY TIMES as much as an Asian Elite School donor egg.
You’re not winning the gene war, buddy.
You know that deep down, don’t you, E? You’re affected by racial preferences that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with black people,(we certainly don’t control the nation’s institutions) but you bash us all, anyway.
Caucasian donor baby supremacy not a clear enough of an example of race preferences for you E?
No? Well…let’s hit a LITTLE bit closer to home…
>>>”According to the 2000 Census, the three Asian ethnicities most likely to marry outside their race are Korean, Filipino, and Chinese. According to these figures, 29.9% of all U.S. raised or born Chinese American women marry whites, and 55% marry men of Chinese descent. Amongst Filipino American women, 40.5% marry whites, while 37% marry other Filipinos or Filipino Americans. Most astonishingly, almost half of all U.S. born or raised Korean American women (48%) marry whites, while only 40% marry men of Korean descent. The Census also showed that Asian American women are twice as likely to marry outside their ethnicity as Asian American men.”
http://www.ialink.tv/e_news/3-01-06/loverace.php
Oh my! Could these Asian-American women be practicing “racial preferences” in the purest definition of the term, E?
Professor Frank H. Wu again:
>>>”Intermarriage still occurs in distinct configurations, and not all individuals have the same ability to engage in it. Races come together assymetrically. Intermarriage may reinforce rather than break down the color line that separates whites from blacks, because intermarriage has risen primarily due to alliances among whites, Asian Americans and Latinos, not African Americans. Whites are much more likely to marry Asian Americans than African Americans. The Asian American intermarriage rate is triple the African American rate. ”
http://www.colorq.org/petsins/article.asp?y=2002&m=9&x=yellow
E, what are you going to do about these BLATANT examples of “racial preferences” going on in America?
–Cobra
Cobra,
It is you again and there you go again!
Again, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Richard said,
“That is why it is not logical (not fair) to try and bestow benefits (or penalties) to anyone based on the group(s) he/she is a member of. By helping one individual based on his group membership you are hurting another (possibly more deserving) individual based on his membership in a different group. The only point that I was making is that by discriminating against Asians as a group, it appears that Harvard was violating the diversity principle that it claims to be championing.”
============================
Cobra totally ignored Richard’s statement REGARDING THE POINT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS and continues with his “nonsense” for RACE PREFERENCES BASED SOLELY ON HIS BLACK SKIN COLOR IN ELITE SCHOOL ADMISSIONS, WHICH CONSTITUTE AN ABOMINATION AGAINST ALL HUMANITY.
Cobra justifies his ranting and raving for preferential treatment based solely on the color of his black skin by stating, “In all honesty, I don’t think the true racist takes the time to identify the exact nation of origin or creed of those he or she thinks is inferior, and in a nation mired in ignorance, that’s one of the reasons I would maintain the current Affirmative Action programs, flawed as they may be.”
Cobra, whom do you think you are kidding? You are definitely not for real. You are the “true” racist whom you speak of by virtue of your statement above. Look in the mirror, Cobra.
Cobra prefaced his own racism by saying, “IN ALL HONESTY”. Who are you to talk about honesty? Who gave you the moral high ground on these threads with your “NONSENSE”. Cobra, you have been pwned many times here, and you talk about “honesty”? You have absolutely no rebuttal to my factual posts and you go off in tangents, avoiding the points I had made, which is par the course for you. Keep googling your idiotic quotes, and cutting and pasting them. Why don’t you ADDRESS my points of arguments? You simply can’t with your load of horse manure. You posts simply cannot pass the smell test. In fact, they stink.
You can’t answer these questions, can you? Instead, you spin, turn and slide with your posting of “nonsense”.
I agree with Leo Cruz who called your posts, “NONSENSE”. You have absolutely no rebuttal to his post.
Cobra, please answer these questions.
1. Why should under performing and underachieving rich affluent immigrant blacks or off-springs of immigrant blacks, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean, receive RACIAL PREFERENCES and be beneficiaries of race based AA in our elite schools by being admitted with lowered standards (test scores and GPAs) and a lowered holistic criteria BASED SOLELY ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKINS??
THIS IS THE CASE AT HARVARD COLLEGE, and the Ivies, where over 70% of the blacks are from the middle to upper economic classes admitted under race based AA. The vast majority of these blacks are admitted with lowered admissions standards compared to the rest of the admitted class at Harvard (or any of the elite schools using racial preferences) and they are not the descendants of the African American slaves for whom race based AA was originally intended to benefit.
2. WHY SHOULD THESE ADMITTED BLACKS (rich affluent underperforming and underachieving) DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED OVER A DIRT POOR CHINESE AMERICAN BORN LIVING IN CHINATOWN, USA OR IN THE SAME BLACK AMERICAN GHETTO, AND WHO OUTPERFORMS HIS BLACK CLASSMATES IN THE SAME GHETTO SCHOOL AND HE EVEN OUTPERFORMS THE ADMITTED AFFLUENT IMMIGRANT BLACK AA ADMITS, ON THE AVERAGE??
Just examine the performance of Asian Americans in the POOREST neighborhoods in America, especially in the Hispanic and black ghettos, where Asian Americans live side by side with blacks and Hispanics in the major cities, such as LA, Detroit or NYC, and examine the performance of the students on the NYC Public School Reports for each school, on test scores, grades, all academic achievement measures, graduation rates, and attendance disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and you will find that the poorest Asian Americans OUTPERFORMED blacks, on the average, almost without exception in every school in NYC’s poorest districts, while living in the same neighborhoods as blacks, in the same apartment buildings with the same lack of economic resources. These poorest of Asian Americans,which include Cambodians and other S.E. Asians, EVEN OUTPERFORMED THE RICHEST MOST AFFLUENT AND EDUCATED BLACKS, ON THE AVERAGE, which include the black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, admitted with race preferences to Harvard and the elites.
Why should these most affluent of blacks, underperforming and underachieving be admitted over the more deserving and higher performing poor Chinese American by every metric used, including the HOLISTIC CRITERIA used for admissions?? Cobra, you cannot justify this with your ranting and raving on these threads.
Cobra, you also continue to hijack threads started by the OP, John Rosenberg, on discrimination against Asian American applicants to elite colleges, with your postings that do not even remotely address the topic of the threads. The topic of this thread is “Harvard Crimson Defends Discrimination (against Asian American)”.
You are the racist who plays the race card and the victim by whining incessantly about being the victim of racism because of your black skin color, yet you defend and condone your own racism, as well as the racism of others, against Asian Americans applicants to elite colleges, in order to support your own racist agenda and hypocritical views with your incessant trolling on this site by hijacking the threads regarding anti-Asian discrimination. The evidence is overwhelming and compelling, and it is clear and convincing, that there is discrimination against Asian Americans applicants to elite colleges, graduate and professional schools for many years, yet you continue to hijack these threads by spewing your “nonsense” and/or horse manure in support of your own discrimination and your vile form of racism against others by playing the race card. I have posted the EVIDENCE in support of my arguments on this matter, yet you continue to ignore it.
Again, Asian Americans are not asking for preferential treatment in admissions, as you are asking for in admissions for even rich affluent under performing, underachieving and under deserving immigrant blacks and their off-springs, with lowered admissions standards as well as a lowered holistic criteria based on your own black skin. Why should these blacks even deserve to be beneficiaries of race based Affirmation Action, a program which was not even targeted for them, but for the descendants of African American slaves, who were the actual victims of their white slave owners, Jim Crow and their own black African brothers in Africa, who sold them as slaves?
You are making a fool of yourself and you are not fooling anyone. Who are you to talk about “intellectual honesty”???? You put your foot in your mouth every time you speak.
E writes:
>>>”These poorest of Asian Americans,which include Cambodians and other S.E. Asians, EVEN OUTPERFORMED THE RICHEST MOST AFFLUENT AND EDUCATED BLACKS, ON THE AVERAGE, which include the black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, admitted with race preferences to Harvard and the elites.”
Why don’t you offer STATISTICS that say that Carribean and African Immigrants are less successful than Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodians?
You don’t offer them, because you CAN’T offer them. You’ve officially jumped the shark. You have little credibility.
I must say, that at least Stephen gets his “master race” rhetoric out concisely, without footnotes and vague repetition. I would assume most readers skim through your pages-long posts with little acknowlegement.
You’re not the FIRST person I’ve caused to go off the deep end here at Discriminations, E, so don’t feel ashamed.
–Cobra
“Why don’t you offer STATISTICS that say that Carribean and African Immigrants are less successful than Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodians?”
============================
Hey Cobra,
The correct spelling is “Caribbean”, and not “Carribean” as you had written.
I did not say this, “Carribean and African Immigrants are less successful than Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodians?”. You are again a LIAR and misquote me. You are full of HORSE MANURE. YOU ARE LYING with your HORSE MANURE AND SPIN ON WHAT I HAD SAID.
I said,
“Just examine the performance of Asian Americans in the POOREST neighborhoods in America, especially in the Hispanic and black ghettos, where Asian Americans live side by side with blacks and Hispanics in the major cities, such as LA, Detroit or NYC, and examine the performance of the students on the NYC Public School Reports for each school, on test scores, grades, all academic achievement measures, graduation rates, and attendance disaggregated by race and ethnicity, and you will find that the poorest Asian Americans OUTPERFORMED blacks, on the average, almost without exception in every school in NYC’s poorest districts, while living in the same neighborhoods as blacks, in the same apartment buildings with the same lack of economic resources. These poorest of Asian Americans,which include Cambodians and other S.E. Asians, EVEN OUTPERFORMED THE RICHEST MOST AFFLUENT AND EDUCATED BLACKS, ON THE AVERAGE, which include the black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, admitted with race preferences to Harvard and the elites.”
I gave you stats for the entire group of the poorest Asian Americans which include all S.E. Asians, East Asians, and South Asians, Cambodians, Hmongs, etc..
These stats are found in the NYC Report Cards on Performance for every single school in NYC, including the ones in the poorest districts. The performance of students in each school is disaggregated by race and ethnicity according to test scores, graduation rates, attendance and other metrics of performance.
I DID NOT SAY that the poor and uneducated HMONGS, as a subgroup of Asians, outperformed the most affluent and educated subgroup of African immigrants. Poor Hmongs, as a subgroup DO NOT OUT PERFORM blacks from rich affluent black immigrants, as a subgroup. But then again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT, COBRA???
The entire group of the poorest and least educated Asian Americans comprised of these subgroups [S.E. Asians (Cambodians, Hmongs, Vietnamese) East Asians, Far East Asians, and South Asians], as a total demographic group, out performed the total demographic group of blacks, which include all economic classes of blacks.
Now, here is the MOST GLARING AND DISTURBING FACT:
The fact that is well known as the Black-White and the Black-Asian Test Score Gaps, and that you refuse to accept is on testing, the blacks from the richest and most affluent economic class with family incomes of above $75K (1995 dollars) and parents with college and graduate degrees, under perform and underachieve or SCORE LOWER when compared to the poorest Asian Americans (and whites) from families under the poverty level of less than $20K (1995 levels) and parents with less than high school educations.
This IS THE BLACK-WHITE AND BLACK-ASIAN TEST SCORE GAPS THAT HAVE BECOME EVEN WIDER EVERY YEAR!!!
It is independent of economic class, because for the same economic class and parental education, blacks perform LOWER on testing and metrics for educational achievement than Asian Americans and whites.
THIS IS THE GAP THAT CANNOT BE CLOSED WITH RACE BASED AA. RACE BASED AA DOES NOT WORK, BECAUSE THESE GAPS HAVE BECOME EVEN WIDER OVER THE LAST FEW DECADES WITH RACE BASE AA. The stats for this fact are POSTED on this thread, and you either can’t read or in complete denial with your horse manure.
The Hmongs are grouped with the Asian American DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP in elite college admissions and do not receive race base AA, and in fact they are also discriminated against, as are the other Asians in the group, in favor of rich, affluent under performing, underachieving and underscoring immigrant blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, who are admitted with lowered standards, relative to the rest of the admitted class, because of race based AA, solely based on the immutable characteristic of skin color.
Again, Asian Americans are not asking for preferential treatment in admissions, as you are asking for in admissions for even rich affluent under performing, underachieving and under deserving immigrant blacks and their off-springs, with lowered admissions standards as well as a lowered holistic criteria based on your own black skin. Why should these blacks even deserve to be beneficiaries of race based Affirmation Action, a program which was not even targeted for them, but for the descendants of African American slaves, who were the actual victims of their white slave owners, Jim Crow and their own black African brothers in Africa, who sold them as slaves?
This is DISCRIMINATION against other groups, favoring undeserving rich under performing, underachieving and under scoring immigrant blacks from the Caribbean amd Africa because they recieve race based AA by being admitted with lowered standards relative to the rest of the admitted class.
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! YOU CAN’T.
====================
Here are the statistics:
Hey Cobra, how do you explain this one?
Bottom Line:
1. Black children from the wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white and Asian children from families below the poverty line.
2. Black children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white and Asian children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.
THESE FACTS ARE SAD AND PITIFUL FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE THE TRUTH. THIS IS ONE OF OUR COUNTRY’S MOST URGENT PROBLEMS, YET COBRA IS IN DENIAL!
IN 2003, ONLY 72 BLACKS SCORED OVER 1500 on the SAT I Math and Verbal (combined) test.
Among the overall student population, 13,897 earned scores higher than 1500.
Source: The College Board
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
Almost No Blacks Among the Top Scorers
on the Scholastic Assessment Test
Bottom Line from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education:
Thus, the huge and growing gap in SAT scores, and particularly the scores at the highest levels, becomes one of the nation’s most urgent problems.
Explaining the Black-White and Black-Asian SAT Gap
There are a number of reasons that are being advanced to explain the continuing and growing black-white SAT scoring gap. Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor. Always there has been a direct correlation between family income and SAT scores. For both blacks and whites, as income goes up, so do test scores. In 2005, 28 percent of all black SAT test takers were from families with annual incomes below $20,000. Only 5 percent of white test takers were from families with incomes below $20,000. At the other extreme, 7 percent of all black test takers were from families with incomes of more than $100,000. The comparable figure for white test takers is 27 percent.
But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences explain the racial gap. Consider these three observable facts from The College Board’s 2005 data on the SAT:
• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
====================
Other STATS:
Are found in the NYC Report Cards on Performance for every single school in NYC, including the ones in the poorest districts. The performance of students in each school is disaggregated by race and ethnicity according to test scores, graduation rates, attendance and other metrics of performance, and income levels (qualifying free lunch in school).
====================
More Stats:
Please read the book:
http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1998/blckwhit.aspx
The Black-White Test Score Gap
Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., Brookings Institution Press 1998 c. 536pp.
Full Text Online
T[he test score gap between blacks and whites—on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence—is large enough to have far-reaching social and economic consequences. In their introduction to this book, Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips argue that eliminating the disparity would dramatically reduce economic and educational inequality between blacks and whites. Indeed, they think that closing the gap would do more to promote racial equality than any other strategy now under serious discussion. The book offers a comprehensive look at the factors that contribute to the test score gap and discusses options for substantially reducing it.]
[Although significant attempts have been made over the past three decades to shrink the test score gap, including increased funding for predominantly black schools, desegregation of southern schools, and programs to alleviate poverty, the median black American still scores below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests. The book brings together recent evidence on some of the most controversial and puzzling aspects of the test score debate, including the role of test bias, heredity, and family background. It also looks at how and why the gap has changed over the past generation, reviews the educational, psychological, and cultural explanations for the gap, and analyzes its educational and economic consequences.]
[The authors demonstrate that traditional explanations account for only a small part of the black-white test score gap. They argue that this is partly because traditional explanations have put too much emphasis on racial disparities in economic resources, both in homes and in schools, and on demographic factors like family structure. They say that successful theories will put more emphasis on psychological and cultural factors, such as the way black and white parents teach their children to deal with things they do not know or understand, and the way black and white children respond to the same classroom experiences. Finally, they call for large-scale experiments to determine the effects of schools’ racial mix, class size, ability grouping, and other policies.]
Again, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, Cobra????
There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success.
==================
More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm#APPENDIX%20B
More SAT data may be found in Appendix B. There, you will discover that Asians mostly sit on top of the heap; that whites, Mexican Americans and blacks follow in that order. Some details prove interesting. For example, whites enjoy a verbal advantage over Asians that disappears at high levels of income and social advantage. Regrettably, the College Board no longer discloses these data. In 1996, they stopped publishing performance by income and parental education disaggregated by race and ethnicity
You’re not the FIRST person I’ve caused to go off the deep end here at Discriminations, E, so don’t feel ashamed.
–Cobra
==================
Again you are lost for a reputable response.
What’s else is new.
LOL!
You have been exposed!
A REMINDER:
Cobra, discrimination against Asian Americans is not OK. This will eventually come back and bite you in the azz, and this will hurt you in the long run.
In response to Cobra’s racism and support of discrimination against Asian Americans in elite college admissions and the Harvard Crimson article in the OP, please file a complaint with the OCR, US Dept. of Education
The editors of the Harvard Crimson argue that discrimination against Asian applicants is necessary in order to produce the “diversity” they think is of overriding importance.
To the students who were discriminated against based on race, color, creed and religion, especially Asian Americans, you do have recourse against the likes of the poster, Cobra and his ilk.
PLEASE CLICK ON:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2625731
Students can file discrimination complaints with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202-1100
1-800-421-3481
FAX: (202) 245-6840; TDD: (877) 521-2172
Online complaint form: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html
E-mail: email hidden; JavaScript is required
Web: http://www.ed.gov/ocr
OFCCP complaint form (complete and file at OFCCP regional office nearest you).
You must file your complaint within 180 days after receiving the rejection letter or other form of discrimination.
If the government takes no action, you will need to hire an attorney to sue.
=============================