tell me what socioeconomic privileges do asian americans have that require them a higher SAT score to get into the same university compared with their black and even WHITE counterparts?
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
first Argumentum ad Populum, and then play a "utter nonsese" labelling without any arguments in support.
just answer me this simple questions: tell me what socioeconomic privileges do asian americans have (majority of whom are immigrants from poor countries - China, India, Vietnam, etc) that require them a higher SAT score to get into the same university compared with their black and even WHITE counterparts?
Last edited:
"affirmative action has helped constantly increase the % of asian americans in universities over the last decade"
quote me which part of the article that support your claim please?
It’s literally in the article I posted if you had bothered to read it.
“Data on Harvard’s own admissions shows that race-conscious admissions have benefitted all communities, including Asian Americans, producing a more diverse student body, Yang said.
Harvard’s admissions statistics show that the share of its admitted class that is Asian American has grown by 27 percent since 2010, according to the university's response to the lawsuit”
I’ve posted data and articles supporting my arguments. something which I don’t see in your posts. you’re just regurgitating right wing talking points and nothing more.
that is exactly the stat I expected you to quote. But the fact that Asian American's share in Harvard has grown by 27% in the past 13 years doesn't mean that AA has made asian american easier to get into Harvard. I trust you have learnt causation vs correlation?
https://www.collegetransitions.com/...ersity found,Asian tax” in college admissions.
Researchers at Princeton University found that applicants who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than a white applicant in order to have an equal chance at admission into an elite college—they dubbed this the “Asian tax” in college admissions.
You still haven't explained why to Asian Americans need to get a higher SAT score to get into the same university compared with white counterparts.
you really haven't presented any logical arguments (neither "Majority of Asian Americans are okay with AA" nor "Asian American students in Harvard grown by 27%since 2010" are valid ones, and I have explained why). seem like you have no ability to engage in rational political debates unfortunately, just blinded by your polarized "left vs right" worldview, identify yourself as "left" and "progressive" (for self righteousness vanity or not) and then treat all "right agenda" as evil, instead of trying to see things as a 3rd person neutral umpire. to be fair many in the right wing do the same too, but the world would be so screwed up if everyone view politics this way, as a "we vs them" football match.
you just keep skipping my question: why do Asian Americans need to get a higher SAT score to get into Princeton or Harvard compared with white counterparts? Just reply me please. You can simply reply me that "NO, Asian Americans don't need to get a higher SAT score to get into Harvard compared with white counterparts!" and post a source for it.
Last edited:
What if the rich kid is black? Should he still get positively discriminated too? And if the poor kid is white, should he still be negatively he discriminated? And what about the Asians (be then rich or not), who need to do significantly better than their black and white counterparts to be accepted at the same university?
That’s why it should be done in individual basis. If you come from a poor school/family get an advantage, regardless of the race.
The fact you people see race only as substitutions for poor or wealthy is unsettling and to my eyes really goes to show how much thought (or little) goes into this argument.
Their culture promotes the same conformism that school does.
I really haven't seen anyone giving a valid reply to this question anywhere (on twitter and on this forum). People just either post random "70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action" (come on, does majority support at a certain time point rationalize a policy? So Putin must be objectively a great leader for Russia than given that he has majority support in Russia), or simply give "that is right wing nonsense!" rants.
I believe the real reason is: Asian Americans do too well in SAT on average and universities don't want to be flooded with Asian Americans - people just don't dare calling a spade a spade, because if they do, their alleged rationale for affirmative policy would collapse.
argh, so we Asians, the sons and daughters of Vietnam boat people or Chinese people escaping from cultural revolution, are the privileged class in the USA just because our culture matches better with the school system, and we need to make reparation for it (even if I am a "rebellious asian"). alright. great!
Public policy debate is so eye opening in this social media age.
Yes that's what I said. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be part of it.
This world is fecked. I hope the meteor arrives soon and does the planet a favour. Hopefully if we evolve again next time we wouldn't be such fecking arseholes.
the world would be so fecked up if hard labour, self constrain and discipline, which have been the backbone of most progresses in humanity, is treated as a "privilege". human civilization is deevoluting since social media and internet magnify voices like that.
make it easy for us, jeff and point out what are some of the illogical points being made from the articles I posted.
why do you keep avoiding my question: " why do Asian Americans need to get a higher SAT score to get into Princeton or Harvard compared with white counterparts? " Did we enslave the black people like the white people did that need us to make reparations or compensation? Or do you agree that our "conformist culture" make us a privileged class in the USA like Abizzz said?
Is legacy admission a nepotism admission? Surely that isn't allowed.
Asian Americans aren't that special, and conformity doesn't equal hard labor or discipline to everyone. Nor are good SAT scores always the result of those, I'd be the perfect example of that
(achieving a great SAT score without either of those or even attending a US high school, just by rocking up on a US base with my US passport to take it when I was 18 without any real preparation, it's not exactly rocket science). They are doing what many many generations of immigrants to the USA have done before them. They are essentially doing now what the US was built on, for themselves, good on them. However the US population includes 2 minorities that did not immigrate to the US, that were never welcome to be part of the US, that were only tools, little more than animals to some of the founders of these institutions we are arguing about. We can never right those historical wrongs but we can at least try to take into account some of the consequences they have had.maybe but that could apply that to literally any discussion. and it doesn’t mean the other side is wrong or unfounded in their argument. and in this context, I am more than happy to take the side of folks mentioned in this article who are more knowledgeable about the issue than you.
so, that’s a no, then? you can’t point out anything illogical? that’s a shame.
you cannot be serious about this?no point to talk further with a manchild like you. I trust some other members can see how childish and immature you are in your replies.
I have already points out two illogicalities in your article
1. Majority support by asian americans does not justify a policy. Putin got majority support in Russia, so he must be objectively speaking a good leader for Russia?
2. the fact that asian american students in harvard grew by 27% since 2010 does not mean AA benefit asian americans. this is very simple correlation and causation difference. Asia's economy has boomed in last decade that made indian and chinese students easier to study in harvard. Asian american's population has grown from 14.8 million in 2010 to 18.9million in 2019 in the first place
grow up man, you are too childish to engage in political debates. Get rid of those cheap sarcasms and learn to be more open minded and try to think from a more neutral perspective instead of identifying yourself as a "class" and religiously believe in whatever things you think people your "class" shall believe in.
I am not even a "right wing" guy btw.
please let us know when you actually get around to refuting the “illogical” points being made in the articles I’ve posted. your putin comparison is some next-level dumb shit. no clue how it is related to affirmative action in any way shape or form. not sure how you or anyone can make that argument with a straight face.
and to your second point, the data mentioned in the article isn’t from ages ago. it is from 2020 and does take into consideration the change in socio-economic conditions of asian admits in the US.
Last edited:
you don't even know what an analogy is - it is just to illustrate that majority subjective support doesn't necessarily rationalize anything objectively. It does not need to be related to affirmative action in any shape or form.
All your replies are full of logical fallacies and you keep confusing opinions and facts. The schooling you have received has certainly done a bad job.
Never thought I can come across with a robotic troll on Redcafe like I did on Twitter.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Surprised to see Cenk say this. I have seen the Young Turks go against the grain quite a bit recently. Legacy admissions needs to be abolished next.
Asian Americans are an American success story. Top performers per capita in terms of educational attainment, household income. You hatingAsian Americans aren't that special, and conformity doesn't equal hard labor or discipline to everyone. Nor are good SAT scores always the result of those, I'd be the perfect example of that
From my knowledge neither were the Chinese who whose descendants were not allowed to be granted American Citizenship until the beginning of last century and the Chinese exclusion act actually banned Chinese immigration to the USA until 1943 (world war II)
Not disagreeing that poor Asian Americans face greater barriers to elite education but I think it's a bit tendentious to focus on the socioeconomic plight of Asian Americans in general.
Median household income for Asian American households seems to be 133% that of white households and 215% that of black households. Asian Americans also represent a greater share of student bodies at elite pre-college schools. Here's a random list of the US's top 50 boarding schools. Take the most successful school in the list- Philips Exeter Academy. Here Asian Americans represent 23% of the student body. Go through as many as you'd like (I scanned the top 10). It does appear that the percentage of Asian Americans that make up the respective student bodies tends to far outweigh their share of the US population as a whole. I think it becomes increasingly apparent that Asian Americans are overrepresented in high end US education far before the point at which they apply to university.
All this is not to say that an Asian American from a poor family is not discriminated against. Undoubtedly they are. It is to say that taken as a group Asian Americans are far from disadvantaged socioeconomically and that when it comes to elite private schooling they appear to have it better even than white Americans.
Last edited:
Possibly a stupid question: is there any evidence of affirmative action in private colleges making a tangible, measureable impact on overall wealth inequality?
As someone that strongly believes spiralling wealth inequality to be the single largest potential catalyst of western democracy failing, that's the piece I'd be focussed on.
My feeling - looking at the current student body breakdowns of at least elite institutions - is that this is a relatively fringe debate. The state of public middle and high schools, free nursery/child-care, not-progressive-enough tax codes and so forth are much, much bigger barriers to addressing the fundamental concern.
I think affirmative action in univeristy admissions just seems like something that makes a big difference.
As someone that strongly believes spiralling wealth inequality to be the single largest potential catalyst of western democracy failing, that's the piece I'd be focussed on.
My feeling - looking at the current student body breakdowns of at least elite institutions - is that this is a relatively fringe debate. The state of public middle and high schools, free nursery/child-care, not-progressive-enough tax codes and so forth are much, much bigger barriers to addressing the fundamental concern.
I think affirmative action in univeristy admissions just seems like something that makes a big difference.
You don't seem to understand affirmative action post quotas. It simply allows race to be considered as one factor among others in admission. There is no discrimination either way.
The answer you are looking for is legacy admissions along with donor advantages along with athletic scholarship advantages that will skew white students' academics lower than Asians. So you're barking up the wrong tree. You should be raging at legacy admissions at elite schools.
Also in California Asians as a group score the highest on tests and have long been the most overrepresented group at not just UC campuses but private schools like Stanford as well so your arguments don't really stand up to deeper thought.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yes and so are American Jews, American Irish, American Germans and American Russians. None of whom had it any better when they started showing up than American Asians. One group arrived in chains.
No, because there have been so many structural advantages baked in that nothing is changing the rising wealth inequality. For higher education, there are far more programs to favor the wealthy than simply allowing universities to consider race as a factor in admission (which is all affirmative action is post the quota era). But that isn't a reason to ban. It's only going to get worse if no university is ever allowed to consider race as a factor in admission.
"In 1985, 54 percent of students at the 250 most selective colleges came from families in the bottom three quartiles of the income distribution. A similar review of the class of 2010 put that figure at just 33 percent. According to a 2017 study, 38 elite colleges—among them five of the Ivies—had more students from the top 1 percent than from the bottom 60 percent. In his 2014 book, Excellent Sheep, William Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale, summed up the situation nicely: “Our new multiracial, gender-neutral meritocracy has figured out a way to make itself hereditary.”
The wealthy can also draw on a variety of affirmative-action programs designed just for them. As Daniel Golden points out in The Price of Admission, legacy-admissions policies reward those applicants with the foresight to choose parents who attended the university in question. Athletic recruiting, on balance and contrary to the popular wisdom, also favors the wealthy, whose children pursue lacrosse, squash, fencing, and the other cost-intensive sports at which private schools and elite public schools excel. And, at least among members of the 0.1 percent, the old-school method of simply handing over some of Daddy’s cash has been making a comeback. (Witness Jared Kushner, Harvard graduate.)
The mother lode of all affirmative-action programs for the wealthy, of course, remains the private school. Only 2.2 percent of the nation’s students graduate from nonsectarian private high schools, and yet these graduates account for 26 percent of students at Harvard and 28 percent of students at Princeton. The other affirmative-action programs, the kind aimed at diversifying the look of the student body, are no doubt well intended. But they are to some degree merely an extension of this system of wealth preservation. Their function, at least in part, is to indulge rich people in the belief that their college is open to all on the basis of merit."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
just to add to this, its also important to remember that a majority of asian americans(excluding those from war torn countries) had the option to choose to come to america. something which wasn’t an option for african americans who ended up in america due to the trans Atlantic slave trade.
That's not entirely true. The Chinese Exclusion Act and Executive Order 9066 (internment camps during WWII especially comparing reactions toward Japanese-Americans with German-Americans at the time) marked very different institutional treatment from the groups you mentioned. The white immigrant groups also had the ability to "pass" for WASP Americans especially with a name change, especially among the second generation in a way that Asian immigrants (along with Latino immigrants) cannot. It's also more complicated when you take into account colorism. Among both Asian and Latino groups, the lighter skinned you are, the better your opportunities have been historically.
You're absolutely right about the unique plight of African-Americans with slavery and I'd add Native Americans also have their own unique plight, neither of which should be ignored. But Asians have, historically, faced much more institutional discrimination than the white immigrant groups you mentioned.
Haha, it's funny that "we Asians" can become exactly as oppressed as needed based on the requirements of the argument.
"Asians" as a group earn the most in the US, by far:
I don't think "Asians" are all "daughters of the boat people" though...
That's *massive* variation within the almost-meaningless umbrella category "Asian". Using the struggles of the worst off among them, to argue for an easier road for the best off, does not make sense. (And if colleges were doing the same generalisation, which I expect they do, that's a bad thing too).
I don't understand US undergrad admissions much. It seems like a very complicated thing, based on scores and essays and legacies and donations and subjective evaluations.
But other countries - Asian countries - have affirmative action programs without the subjective features of the US. In my college in India, we had a score, and a quota (more stringent type of affirmative action), no essay, no legacy, just a list based on test rank.
I know that in China it is also a score (from the Gao kao), but they also have affirmative action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_China
I honestly don't know if what they faced was worse then indenture, being kept and turned away at Ellis Island, being housed in a hellscape like five points etc. Only very few arrived on the Mayflower.