Quite a few. Numerically, it is eclipsed by the number of legacies, which is a common feature of select private schools. Of course, legacy admissions tend to skew non-minority.... It's astonishing how unfair life is, huh?

It's astonishing how blithe some people are about certain of life's many injustices.

You're OK with Asians being discriminated against in college admissions? You don't see a problem with that, it's just basically tough shit for them, huh?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Strange times we live in.

The democrats are now the party of misogyny, censorship and racism.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Always have been, just being republicized

I feel the same way. It seems like the next wave of social justice is equality of outcome.

That was 20 years ago. Now it’s payback.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No, I am simply not as selective in my viewpoint. The discrimination against of the poor in this country (which tends to fall along racial lines) is simply so vast, and the manner in which we fund college education so unfair that other injustices need to be seen in that context. These would include foreign vs. domestic admissions, legacy admissions, college athletic admissions and reverse discrimination. You are ignoring systemic and much more pervasive injustice.

Please let me know when you think that we have the same equality of opportunity. We presently are at an extreme in inequality of outcome, so any effort to shift from that extreme will be dishonestly termed "equality of outcome". Your concern is an example of "slippery slope fallacy".

It's astonishing how blithe some people are about certain of life's many injustices.

You're OK with Asians being discriminated against in college admissions? You don't see a problem with that, it's just basically tough shit for them, huh?

Strange times we live in.

The democrats are now the party of misogyny, censorship and racism.

So the party that wants bans on certain groups for even entering the country now is upset because there aren't enough of another group attending Universities?

It sounds like selective injustices works in both parties, no?

Can you point me to a us government (current or proposed) policy that bans people from entering this country based on race?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ps: I’m opposed to Trumps immigration policy and travel ban and have said so here emphatically numerous times.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ps: I’m opposed to Trumps immigration policy and travel ban and have said so here emphatically numerous times.

I know you are but I was just pointing out that there seems to be an outcry because there aren't enough Asians in American Universities when it seems the administration is doing a lot to keep people out of the country. The travel ban to keep people "safe", the much publicized wall and the general desire to put Americans first.

I just find it odd that there is an outcry against Asians. Are they the only group that are under-represented? Considering Asians represent 60% of the world's population, they would have to be a majority for things to be fair. Then there's the 15% who live in Africa, is the admission fair for them? It just seems a very slippery thing to try to get a hold of, particularly when the institutions are private and can set their own rules.

Good lord...


No, the outcry is about the fact that universities are blatantly and explicitly discriminating against people based on race and ethnic background.

Isn’t that obvious?


Yes, and that’s called “immigration policy” and it’s based (in some instances) based on what country a person comes from regardless of skin color, race, ethnic background, religion, etc.

Also, I’d like to point out that the United States has probably the most lax and generous immigration policy in the world.


They aren’t under represented, they are being held to a different (higher standard) than other people based on race. You know, they have slanted eyes and names like Chang so they have to perform to a higher standard than that guy with big lips named Tyrone.

It’s fucking straight up racism.

The excuse used to let blacks and latinos be held to a lower standard is that they are “brown” and have suffered past discrimination by whites. But now we have Asains, who are also brown, who seem to be doing really well for themselves and we can’t have that!

This fight to “protect” Asians form discrimination is really just a way to expose “affirmative action” for what it is, racism being accepted based on fraudulent reasoning (that brown skinned people can’t compete with whites).

Whites are getting outperformed by brown skinned Asians.


What’s fair? Base your judgements on indiviual performance standards that are the same for everyone.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

The moment you enter the classroom everyone has the same opportunity. If you're a poor minority trying to get into college you have a greater opportunity. The single largest factor that determines your earning potential is education. Parents have the biggest impact on a child's education. Blacks have the highest amount of single parents homes and Asians have the lowest amount. Not surprisingly, Blacks have the highest high school drop out rates and Asians have the lowest.

Please help me understand how racism is causing black men to have sex outside of wedlock and abandon their children. Similarly, how is racism causing roughly half of black students to drop out of high school? If you grow up poor in a single parent household life is going to be more difficult for you than if you grow up middle class with a mom and a dad, but that doesn't mean our system is racist.

Yes, and that’s called “immigration policy” and it’s based (in some instances) based on what country a person comes from regardless of skin color, race, ethnic background, religion, etc.

Sorry but I only know the Thai and English alphabet.

Well, one (fairly valid) explaination is that the socialist welfare policies put in place largely by democrats over the last 40 years have contributed to this by making fatherhood unnecessary and financially rewarding the having of children out of wedlock.

More kids = more transfer payments.

And this has gone disproportionately to black “communities”.

I believe these policies are based on the racist view that blacks can’t make it on their own and need the help of white liberal elites.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Something is going on the site today. Yesterday all that shit looked fine.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

• Did all the kids have similar preschooling opportunities? No.
• Are all schools of similar quality? No.
• Do kids of parents without college degrees and parents with advanced degrees have similar opportunities? No.
• Are peer groups in differing socio-economic classes similiar? No.
• Do poor and middle-class college students have similar economic choices in attending and paying for college? No.
• have the "opportunities" between poor and wealthy enclaves diverged over the past generation? Yes.

New alert, opportunity has never equal, and we never have expected it to be. That said, our present "meritocracy" (really a word that encompasses inherited wealth, pure academic prowess, social connections, grit, talent, luck and many other factors) has led to more unequal opportunity as measured by a host of factors, which has demonstrably worsened for many years. If you believe it is and has been completely equal since public schooling started, I can't help you. One can look at it purely through a socioeconomic lens, but the disparity in opportunity remains, the American under-class is disproportionately minority, and economic and geographical mobility has plummeted.

So it's ok to discriminate if the people being discriminated might have money? You know that not all Asian people have big money right?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

It is okay to set policies to address systemic inequality. (I support that mostly as a matter of social stability). It is obvious that extraordinary disparity in wealth is a primary component of unequal opportunity. I have almost no problem with shifting affirmative actions along socio-economic lines. The reality is that too many on the left (not all) continue to see inequality in only racial terms, and too many on the right (again not all) see no inequality of opportunity at all (reference Perseus' post). I would readily dump race-based affirmative action if it was replaced with affirmative action which more strongly addressed such inequality.

FYI, As a Mexican-American, I would be the primary beneficiary of our present system, if I wasn't already so old (and slow).

Systemic Inequality? I thought public school curriculums where standardized. And our poor have more money per pupil spent on them than the rich of most countries. I find it sad that, after all that, in America you can throw around the term systemic inequality without ever offering proof of it's existence or any context to its influence. Systemic inequality is just a boogey man that literally means whatever you need it to mean to support whatever tribal decisions you want to make.

I did make a fairly detailed list:
"

• Did all the kids have similar preschooling opportunities? No.
• Are all schools of similar quality? No.
• Do kids of parents without college degrees and parents with advanced degrees have similar opportunities? No.
• Are peer groups in differing socio-economic classes similar? No.
• Do poor and middle-class college students have similar economic choices in attending and paying for college? No.
• have the "opportunities" between poor and wealthy enclaves diverged over the past generation? Yes.

"

There are lots of studies on each of these. Look them up. I find it sad that you made your statement above, and refused to even acknowledge any of the issues that I brought up. File your response under "all complaint, no rebuttal, no solution"

I happen to support better access to pre-school education, more equality between school districts, reforming school zoning policies, reforming college funding and entrance.... Do you have any policy ideas (more/less/different)? What works best in various states or in different countries?

Please show me laws or policies that discriminate against specific races and I will stand with you, and others, to help fight for change. The problem is that many people would rather dismiss personal responsibility and blame the system for their circumstance. Who's fault is it that the majority of black children are growing up in single parent homes? Who's fault is it that nearly half of all black children drop out of high school? Unquestionably, I benefited growing up with a mother and a father in a home where I felt loved and safe. If someone does not grow up in that environment, then my heart goes out to them but that does not mean our government is unfair. Inequity and inequity are not the same thing.

I say 'so what' to everything you wrote here. Studies are just that -- studies. The fact that someone studied preschools or whatever doesn't mean a thing. Sorry, the points you wrote down don't explain much at all.
The fact of the matter is that the kids with the most talent and the kids who put in the most work get the best opportunities*. Why would you want it to go any other way?

There are exceptions to this rule -- the Jared Kushners and the like -- but those are VERY specific cases that go over the heads of admissions personnel and admissions policies anyway. Those decision have got nothing to do with preschools, school quality, parental education levels, peer group exposure, or poor versus rich divergence. Those decisions aren't going to be affected by your policy of picking poor kids or kids of color with less merit policy.

Couple of things here...

First, I'm not sure that access to pre-school education really enhances anything. While Head Start remains a politically popular program, there are a fair number of studies that show it doesn't do much in the long term. I am aware that there are studies that show otherwise, but I think one can at least say that the benefits of programs like Head Start are ambiguous at best.

Second, there is zero correlation between per student spending levels and student achievement in my neck of the USA, and I would bet that holds true in other places as well. The school district I live in spends less per student, yet has far better outcomes than adjacent school districts that get more funding from the state. The main difference is likely to be found in how much the student's parents value education and support their local schools. I'm not sure how you fix that with a government program.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.