Affirmative action : Harvard

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on August 30, 2018 - 2:52pm

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/politics/...

Justice Department sides with Asian-Americans suing Harvard over admissions policy

The record evidence demonstrates that Harvard's race-based admissions process significantly disadvantages Asian-American applicants compared to applicants of other racial groups -- including both white applicants and applicants from other racial minority groups," the Justice Department said in court papers Thursday

Asians are officially whiter than white, at least when it comes to the admissions process.

It would be nice if this issue didn't fall on deaf ears when so many folks have raised this as a legitimate concern for decades now. Sure glad someone is finally doing something about it, even though the rest of this administration is pretty messed up. Apparently ultra progressives think discrimination isnt really discrimination if you are Asian , except the brief moment in time when they need your vote.

Submitted by flu on August 30, 2018 - 3:02pm.

Funny also CNN buries this on the back pages and it isn't page 1 content. I guess negative coverage of Trump (which we all already know about) is far more important than some of the social issues, especially when it doesn't fit with the far left progressive narrative of being all inclusive of all "minorities".... lol

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 30, 2018 - 8:24pm.

Flu, I guess you don't believe in private organizations' right to do what they want.

Submitted by ucodegen on August 30, 2018 - 9:32pm.

flu wrote:
Funny also CNN buries this on the back pages and it isn't page 1 content. I guess negative coverage of Trump (which we all already know about) is far more important than some of the social issues, especially when it doesn't fit with the far left progressive narrative of being all inclusive of all "minorities".... lol

Well griping about Trump does fit the far left progressive narrative, while race-based admissions processes (which these groups support) are inherently racist, discriminatory and racially biased. This is the hypocrisy of the far left.

If you want to get more Blacks and Hispanics into college, don't force feed at the college level. Fix the respective elementary, intermediate and high schools. Push the parents to be more involved in their children's education. Push the focus to be on the basics and not 'feel good' classes or social promotion. If you try to force it at college, too much time is spent on remedial classes to try to bring them up to speed.

On a side note, I don't know how much of the page position is dependent upon intentional placement vs algorithm based placement based upon information on tracking your previous views or the views of those from your area/county/state. The intent would be to present to you only those things that you would view or which could also lead to additional 'views'. This can cause a problem where news only presents things that they think agree with your current beliefs based upon tracking info and that then can lead to something known as confirmation bias.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Flu, I guess you don't believe in private organizations' right to do what they want.

Here's the problem. The news agencies are not your typical 'company'. They can't behave as propagandists or lobbyists. If they do, they cross over into a different part of tax code as well as 'rights' to operate. The first amendment gives certain freedoms of the press to news agencies to poke and prod (try to get past a fire-line without a press pass, or past police barriers without a press pass) which the rest of us don't get. With that comes some responsibilities for honesty and 'fair play'.

Submitted by flu on August 31, 2018 - 5:33am.

ucodegen wrote:

Well griping about Trump does fit the far left progressive narrative, while race-based admissions processes (which these groups support) are inherently racist, discriminatory and racially biased. This is the hypocrisy of the far left.

If you want to get more Blacks and Hispanics into college, don't force feed at the college level. Fix the respective elementary, intermediate and high schools. Push the parents to be more involved in their children's education. Push the focus to be on the basics and not 'feel good' classes or social promotion. If you try to force it at college, too much time is spent on remedial classes to try to bring them up to speed.

As I talk to more and more parents with kids that have gone through or are going through the college admissions process, the more it seems like it way worse (more discriminatory) these days than it was when I had to go through this process... Not just for asians, but also for white kids (sorry, I'm sick of using the term caucasian to be politically correct, especially when talking about college admission processes, when colleges these days seem to care more about skin color than anything else)

This problem isn't just occurring in Ivy League schools..It looks like it's happening at other schools, some public too

https://www.city-journal.org/html/fewer-...

A lot of schools these day leave a large percentage of college admissions based on a "fit and feel" hollistic view that is very subjective... I believe even UC schools have this something like this, to a lesser extent....up to 25% of one's admission is subjective based on "life experiences, educational upbringing, social issues" and a bunch of other bullshit crap that has very little educational/performance results. Other schools, that percentage goes way up and the field of "subjectivity" touches things that here in CA is blatantly illegal (prop 209), but still 25% subjectivity, smokescreened as "hollistic view" can still be abused to tilt admissions one way.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/20/...

Coupled with the already audited issue that UC schools are heavily biasing admissions to overseas applicants that can pay a full out-of-state tuition ride, that leaves in state Asian Americans at a very interesting predicament... Reduced admissions...

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov...

It's this 25% subjectivity that some parents have been saying is very unfavorable for white or asian kids (asian kids worse), unless your kid is in the top 1% that makes this 25% subjectivity irrelevant...(Why must my kid being asian or white subject to a 25% penalty, just because????)

Most recently, there were two boys I know, caucasian, that from elementary school has competed in every single FLL, VEX robotics competition all the way to high school. By the time they were a juniors, both of these kids had won so many STEM awards, rebotics awards that both of their resumes, if they had one, would have been 10x more impressive than most graduates from college these...Both grades were pretty decent too. It wasn't over 4.0. They weren't athletic, per se (who really is)...Anyway, neither got into a single UC school or Ivy League engineering school, which is all they wanted to do. I was like WTF?

Here, we have American CEOs at tech company who constantly complain about how we, America, don't home grow enough engineers and scientists for the future, and why American schools needs to admit foreign students into engineering programs and hire H1-Bs to fill a skills void that most Americans do not have.....Meanwhile, we have some white kids from elementary school who's loved math and science, competed and done well in math and science throughout school, and wants to do engineering (when most high school students are goal-less), and is probably more qualified than most applicants to the top rank engineering school, but doesn't get in. Probably because that 25% subjectivity went against them, maybe because they didn't play sports, or didn't put down they do 200+hours of community service that people really don't do....or wasnt poor or didn't have any social-injustice life changing experiences....Sorry, maybe those kids were just too busy being good STEM kids and spending most of their time doing what they were naturally good at instead of immersing themselves a bunch of "filler" bullshit.

That's pretty fucked up. It's making me re-evaluate where I recruit my fresh out of school candidates...It certainly explains why I'm seeing so many U.C. and Ivy League candidates can't code out of a wet paper bag, and wonder how the hell did they get into a good engineering school to begin with.

So here's an interesting predicament I've been thinking about. Asian american kid from a normal upper middle but not uber wealthy class
1) Can't get into Ivy League schools based on his/her heritage alone (no white privilege like a Bush, Clinton, insert your favorite white family with a long history in America that just gets because of his/her heritage)
2) Has to work a lot harder than someone latino or african american to get noticed by Ivy League admissions board

And then, if he/she does get in
3) Parents have to pay roughly $80,000/year ...., because obviously their parents won't qualify for financial aid.....
... while kids from "disadvantaged background" (and I wonder how many are trully disadvantaged) get a free or reduced tuition ride....

Do I really want my kid and my wallet to go through this bullshit system?
$320k (and probably more if you factor in a 4% increase in college expenses per year on average)....That's a lot of money to give to your kids to help them build their financial future....It's not that I can't afford that amount and write that check right now...It's the principle of this entire situation.

And the sad part is, at least I can talk about this without being accused of being a racist because I'm Asian. All progressives will do is just sweep what I have to say under the rug and ignore me and other Asians, because that's what usually happens and has been happening all these years, well at least until they want my vote.....If you're a white family and you bring this up as an issue, you probably get tarred and feathered and labeled a racist. Go figure.

Where are those cheaper online college degree courses again????
There's got to be a better way of doing things.

#BoycottHarvard

Submitted by flu on August 31, 2018 - 5:38am.

...meanwhile...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/30/pf/cali...

"California wants to mandate a woman on every company board"

...and.....

https://www.sfgate.com/business/networth...

"New law bans California employers from asking applicants their prior salary"

Because obviously, the way to solve gender inequality is to legislate it...

Ah, yes, from the state filled with fruits and nuts...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 31, 2018 - 8:07am.

What if women have the same or superior academic credentials than men?

You are not consistent, Flu. Pick a position and stick to it.

Submitted by flu on August 31, 2018 - 5:54pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
What if women have the same or superior academic credentials than men?

You are not consistent, Flu. Pick a position and stick to it.

You make no sense. Typical left progressive.

IF a woman is the same or has superior academic credentials, she would get in to college or a get a high ranking corporate position by her credentials by merit, as several women already do.

Just like AMD CEO Lisa Su runs AMD far better than the sort of "leaders" that Intel has been hiring based on diversity for diversity sake. That's probably one of many reasons why Intel is now in deep shit, and AMD is back from a near death.

Since when did you care about woman's rights Brian? Past posts, you were heavily misogynist, especially towards caucasian women. All the sudden, you care about women rights? Wow Brian, speaking of consistency....Typical of a hypocritical ultra "progressive".

But anyway, thank god someone is trying to do something about the monstrous thing affirmative action. Burning the entire system down hopefully will be sooner than later.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 31, 2018 - 11:06pm.

flu wrote:

IF a woman is the same or has superior academic credentials, she would get in to college or a get a high ranking corporate position by her credentials by merit, as several women already do.

But that is not that case now and that's what legislation is for.
The future belongs to women. They will sue, legislate and demand more, in business, government, the military, etc... as it should be.

Who I prefer on a personal level has nothing to do with policy and merit. I can compartmentalize just fine. BTW, I have nothing against Caucasian women. I think Americans of all races in general, woman and men, are fat, or plump, not refined, and with poor sense of fashion. Europeans of all races are more slim, elegant and beautiful in comparison. It's not a race thing. It's culture.

Legacy admission at elite colleges is a fairness problem, not affirmation action. Nothing wrong with giving some disadvanged students a leg up. Shouldn't private entities be able to do what they want? It's like you donating money to whatever charity you choose.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...

Flu, the inconsistency is that on the one hand you rail against legislation, but on the other hand, you want the government to force Harvard, a private university, to do what you want.

Submitted by spdrun on September 1, 2018 - 12:22pm.

Flu -- thank G-d for a law that bans asking about prior salary or even salary expectation. Be straightforward, list a damn salary for the job, don't make it a guessing game.

With the salary question:

Pick too low? You look stupid and ignorant. Or are punished if you came from an academic or non-profit job.

Pick too high? You have too high expectations from the job, they might as well not call.

Submitted by flu on September 1, 2018 - 12:54pm.

spdrun wrote:
Flu -- thank G-d for a law that bans asking about prior salary or even salary expectation. Be straightforward, list a damn salary for the job, don't make it a guessing game.

With the salary question:

Pick too low? You look stupid and ignorant. Or are punished if you came from an academic or non-profit job.

Pick too high? You have too high expectations from the job, they might as well not call.

No amount of legislation can fix people who can't negotiate their comp packages well.

I never had a problem with asking for a comp package that I wanted.I liked it when, unlike others that lied , I could actually prove my comp package.

The other angle is that no one ever works for a published salary because everything is negotiable. I've had so many offers from companies that initially published one low ball number, only to go through the interview and end up with something 20% higher than my current comp.

I suspect the reason for wage disparity had a lot to do with how well one negotiates, and quite often, people are too willing to settle for less than they could be compensated for. Maybe because they are desperate,syne they need a paycheck to make ends meet, maybe they waited until the got laid off before they started looking....For some reason, some people dont negotiate well, particularly geeks. You can't legislate to fix that.

Even when I am perfectly happy at a current job, I always answer
every head hunter, and I am always upfront I will only consider a position that is either a lateral move paying a lot more, or a move upward paying a lot more. Confronted with "wouldn't you want to work for an exciting startup" , I always answer "show me the money" and if I get "this is a startup without a lot money", I say "show me the equity", and if I get "we'll determine that after youve worked for a few years" I say "good luck with finding your candidate, I don't run a charity".

For me, I not obligated to work, they were trying to recruit me, and considering I am much more leaning towards retirement these days, yeah I'll postpone my retirement only if a nice number is thrown my way with decent hours. This is the best negotiation tactic I have found. No amount of legislation can help that.

Submitted by spdrun on September 1, 2018 - 1:22pm.

I'd rather have things be more straightforward... require truth in advertising as far as comp packages. Require a certain amount of vacation time and limit working hours by law. State takeover of hellth insurance and pension systems. Life's a lot simpler when you don't have to negotiate, scrimp, scrounge, and plan for every damn little thing.

People in free countries that lean more towards socialism tend to be happier and more carefree.

You shouldn't HAVE to deal with proving your previous comp package. You know what your time is worth to you. The company knows what your services are worth to them. The trick is meeting somewhere in the middle -- it should be irrelevant what your services were worth three years ago when you were hired at your last job.

Submitted by KIBU on September 1, 2018 - 2:03pm.

In the context of our history, this is a fight of 2 feathersweight against each other. I rather join the audiences.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 1, 2018 - 2:37pm.

Good for you Flu that you know how to negotiate. Everything should be negotiable and buyer beware as long as there is symmetry of power and a meeting of the minds.

But we all know that employers have an asymmetric power advantage. The legislation is to address the assymetry, create some fairness, and empower job seekers.

Yes, most people need/want jobs, loans., housing, cars, etc. bad enough that they will make bad deals. It’s easy to make a good deal when the power is on your side, or if the other side wants the deal more than you do.

Submitted by Ricechex on September 3, 2018 - 7:48pm.

This is awful. This is discriminating against Asians who have worked hard and persevere to get those MD's. No, I am not Asian. My elderly father lives in Santa Cruz and almost all of his doctors are Asian. He trusts them. He is a very brilliant retired radiologist. He is concerned that if the medical schools accept just anyone based on race then why would you trust them? They are just going to accept people and pass them because of race? I think it is discriminatory.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2018 - 11:10am.

Ricechex wrote:
He is concerned that if the medical schools accept just anyone based on race then why would you trust them? They are just going to accept people and pass them because of race? I think it is discriminatory.

I don’t believe it’s a problem at the Harvard level.
But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt.... if this private university wants to damage it’s brand, should it not have the freedom to do so without government meddling?

Submitted by flu on September 4, 2018 - 11:35am.

Once again, Brian, you are clearly demonstrating you lack any consistency or only support "a progressive agenda "simply because it's progressive, even as backassward it is. By your own admission, you are blinded even when a policy is awful.

But I'll bite....with an example...

Fair Housing Act.

With your own rental properties, Brian, I dare you to publish something on craigslist or zillow, with your real contact information for rent to your private property...something that says ..I will only consider 25% of the qualified african americans and latinos applicants for my available condos/houses...

Let's see how far you get with that one...

If you cannot see this as the same thing or try to weasle around it like you normally do...then, you sir, are a progressive parrot moron.

As much as I hate Mr. Trump, Brian, I have to say, you and your type of "progressiveness" (not all democrats or liberals, or progressive.... just your flavor of it), constantly reminds me of why he won...And might continue to win if your flavor keeps it up....

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2018 - 12:26pm.

Flu, I have never been ideological. I believe in policies what work.

It's the conservatives who are ideological. I'm just employing their own arguments when they work for me.

And no, you can't blame me for Trump. Blame the deplorables who voted for him. The assbackward argument is that "perfectly reasonable people voted for Trump to spite the liberal elitists." The deplorables have to take responsibility for their own guy.

Submitted by Ricechex on September 4, 2018 - 9:07pm.

Flyer-
I agree. They are damaging their own reputation. What is most disturbing is that Harvard is KNOWN to be reputable. This just sets some new low standards. If Harvard is doing this, what next?

When you need a triple bypass will you trust a Harvard educated doctor?

I will take the Asian educated doctors ANY DAY. They got their degrees FAIR and SQUARE. They are certainly more trustworthy then anyone that gets through a medical school based on an affirmative action policy. Achievement should not be based on race.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 5, 2018 - 10:27am.

Ricechex, you can choose to trust or not trust Harvard.

But shouldn't Harvard, a PRiVATE university be left alone to manage its own affairs? Kind of like NFL teams should be able to hire who they want. Ot Nike should be able to hire who they want. You don't have to support their products.

If you know of a compelling reason the government should force Harvard to change admissions policy, then please state it. It's not necessarily Black and Hispanics who will lose slots to make room for more Asians.

Ricechex wrote:
If Harvard is doing this, what next?

Harvard has been doing this for a long time. It's not new.

The question is if the government can do this, then what next? Should everything in life be based on academic record?
Should Google be forced to hire applicants with the best grades? (Assuming they are hiring applicants without pertinent work history, straight out of college). And should the government be involved in that?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 6, 2018 - 7:19am.

the gov. should be involved in prohibiting negative action. harvard cant say, NO JEWS ALLOWED, like the old days.

if harvard allotted 70 perc of its slots in affirmative action for jews, then thered be 70 perc less spots for everyone else. even if its unclear who is affected by that 70 % , it feels disingenous to say negative action is wholly different than affirmative action. at least negative action is clear. affirmative action is covert.

yhat said, i am in favor of affirmative action.

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2018 - 2:14pm.

it's pretty funny that all the articles about how affirmative action abolishment will affect university donations from alumni.....

https://www.propublica.org/article/affir...

"If preferences for black and Hispanic applicants are abolished, expect a backlash against admissions boosts for children of alumni and donors"....

Wrong, all itm means is the demographics of admissions would shift to those that fit the new system/criteria irrespective of color....."

Second type of articles claim abolishing affirmative action would be determent all to minority rights. Wrong. It would be detrimental to some minorities that got in under a two criteria system. it would not be detrimental to those minorities that can get in normally. And it would definitely help those minorities that were held back because they aren't considered minorities and quota limited.

Notice no mention of Asians anywhere in these articles... Things are only white and black....no consideration for yellow....How convenient.....

https://www.insidesources.com/whats-stak...

Now consider this..Most Asians probably only care about the education unfairness institutionalized mainly by progressives. Things repeatedly challenged over and over again as far back ago 20 years+ by Asians, including me. Constantly falling on deaf ears from progressives... no hearing, no thought, no compromises from progressives....Same old policy or worse as the years progressed. Without reform, or a say, Id say there's a pretty large body of pissed of people that would be glad to see this entire system torn down...and this is just over one issue ... there's countless other issues that that a lot more people are equally pissed off over all over the country, again unmet over decades. It finally boiled over....and what we ended up with is an extreme, ugly backlash of the status quo that is now known of the Trump Era... It's pretty ugly, it's pretty extreme... and it will undoubtedly undo a lot of changes bad OR good....but certainly, it shouldn't be a surprise why this happened..
on as much if we stay on this extremity, in 10-15years, well end up violently swinging back to the far left....10-15 years is probably when another supreme court judge seat will be available.....

That's what our country has become a violent swinging between far left and far right where anyone in the middle is perceived as weak, in part stirred up by the media for ratings. We deserve every bit of crap we are getting.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 6, 2018 - 4:10pm.

flu wrote:

That's what our country has become a violent swinging between far left and far right where anyone in the middle is perceived as weak, in part stirred up by the media for ratings. We deserve every bit of crap we are getting.

There is no swing to the left. Swing to the right, yes... and people in the middle have been complacent in accepting the extreme right narrative that there is symmetry between right and left. And you fell for it, flu.

Any political scientist would tell you that the whole world has been moving rightward.

There is nothing wrong with affirmative action. The narrative that unqualified applicants are given preferential treatment is false. In higher education, it's more like 4.0 GPA vs. 3.8 GPA when a disadvantaged applicant with a compelling life story and is admitted.

Progressives understand nuances and want kindness and compassion in policy making. Right wingers make up stuff to rile up people.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 6, 2018 - 4:10pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
the gov. should be involved in prohibiting negative action. harvard cant say, NO JEWS ALLOWED, like the old days.

if harvard allotted 70 perc of its slots in affirmative action for jews, then thered be 70 perc less spots for everyone else. even if its unclear who is affected by that 70 % , it feels disingenous to say negative action is wholly different than affirmative action. at least negative action is clear. affirmative action is covert.

yhat said, i am in favor of affirmative action.

Scaredy, as always, you're the smartest guy in the room.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 6, 2018 - 11:22pm.

thanks but i have no idea what i just wrote.

or what the law is.

pretty sure its not completely upfront.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.