Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on June 16, 2018, 09:36:48 AM
-
And discriminated Asians
Why on Earth would college kids personality matter during admission?
https://nyti.ms/2HRc6FJ
-
Shame on Havard.
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o.
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o.
But they are saying Asians are unlikeable. What if they said Negroes were not? Negros would burn down the entire place
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o .
But they are saying Asians are unlikeable. What if they said Negroes were not? Negros would burn down the entire place
Not really. Worse things have been said about Negroes and continue to be said. And done. When a Negro sues, almost always it's because shit has hit the fan. Not because some closet Negro supremacist is trying to score some points. There are too many real grievances to find time for petty ones.
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o .
But they are saying Asians are unlikeable. What if they said Negroes were not? Negros would burn down the entire place
Not really. Worse things have been said about Negroes and continue to be said. And done. When a Negro sues, almost always it's because shit has hit the fan. Not because some closet Negro supremacist is trying to score some points. There are too many real grievances to find time for petty ones.
Remember that these are not mere words,but actions that limit opportunities,Golden opportunities for minorities. I think they have a very solid case.
Ivy League education is not petty by any stretch of imagination
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o .
But they are saying Asians are unlikeable. What if they said Negroes were not? Negros would burn down the entire place
Not really. Worse things have been said about Negroes and continue to be said. And done. When a Negro sues, almost always it's because shit has hit the fan. Not because some closet Negro supremacist is trying to score some points. There are too many real grievances to find time for petty ones.
Remember that these are not mere words,but actions that limit opportunities,Golden opportunities for minorities. I think they have a very solid case.
Ivy League education is not petty by any stretch of imagination
A tough case to make given Asians are over-represented. If I am not wrong SCOTUS affirmed that indeed race is a valid consideration for admission to these institutions. It’s not a secret who the historically disadvantaged beneficiary is supposed to be.
-
It explains why Havard is so behind in research. It's unnatural to stifle racial harmony. Institutions reap what they sow. I'll be boycotting all things Havard and omitting them from announcements.
-
I am with Havard on this. Personality is very subjective and you cannot sue someone for not finding you likeable :o .
But they are saying Asians are unlikeable. What if they said Negroes were not? Negros would burn down the entire place
Not really. Worse things have been said about Negroes and continue to be said. And done. When a Negro sues, almost always it's because shit has hit the fan. Not because some closet Negro supremacist is trying to score some points. There are too many real grievances to find time for petty ones.
Remember that these are not mere words,but actions that limit opportunities,Golden opportunities for minorities. I think they have a very solid case.
Ivy League education is not petty by any stretch of imagination
A tough case to make given Asians are over-represented. If I am not wrong SCOTUS affirmed that indeed race is a valid consideration for admission to these institutions. It’s not a secret who the historically disadvantaged beneficiary is supposed to be.
Overrepresented as far their population proportion is concerned,but still artificially underrepresented.
This is a case of a minority group resisting affirmative action because it works against them
-
Asians are over represented in the Ivy Leagues, jobs and the economy. They do not qualify for affirmative action. They should therefore be deleted as a minority. It would be like the Jews claiming to be a minority.
-
Wtf Ro? Asians make up less than 2% of the American population. They are a minority group. Jews are a minority group but they're not recognised for their protection and for political reasons. During the war, Jews took up Anglo names. Also even today lots of Jews live in fear and hoarde food in their cupboards I kid you not.
-
Ro, I worry how you preach is exactly the same mindset Hitler's psychology advisors brainwashed Germans. It began with Jews are overrepresented in etc. to genocide. Asians should be treated equally regardless. I'm so tired of racist whites assuming asians should be smart which means they have no feelings. That's called racial profiling and if it isn't stopped it breeds hate crimes.
-
Hmm...I don know about this. It's a tough one. Although it's interesting that Righty people have been citing this case for a few months as an example of how affirmative action is unfair when it appears from this piece that the most advantaged group from these practices is White Americans :D
Demographics is just one factor of many and I highly doubt that the Courts are going to sanction Harvard for that, even if they sanction them for the others. African Americans face unique challenges in the US that put them at a distinct and unique disadvantage long before they even sit their SATs. Only a cold heart will want to take away affirmative action.
The chief complaint here seems to be the other 3 criteria that significantly favour Whites over Asians. Is that process fair? That's what needs be probed, IMHO. It might be there is a bias here masquerading as objectivity, considering that Harvard is a school operating in a majority White country.
At the same time, it might be that students who score the highest, whatever their race, just tend to be lacking in the area of personality...some kinda of cost/benefit balance, and it just so happens that more of these geniuses come from Asian communities. Competitiveness and ambition often come with low agreeableness in the big 5 personality test, the only personality test with some scientific credibility. That's just speculation on my part but people at the highest end of any trait to be a bit different. If Asians have a bigger proportion of this top percentile, and the top percentile have low agreeableness due to great competitiveness, It may perhaps be why.
You might also say that Harvard is using these separate criteria to balance out demographics in a way that favours all groups. Maybe one criterion puts one group so low and the other criteria balance it all out. Then they have one for demographics to balance things further if after considering all the 5, there is still a demographic imbalance. Perhaps there are enough Asians among the staff and alumni so that leaving out these guys in the analysis cited changes how things look. Maybe Harvard already knows that it has this many number of Asians already coming in that way that it changes how many Asians it lets in through the other admission process.
A school has a right to value diversity as a core value and one of the things it promises its students, for example. An assumption that Harvard as a school should value SATs or one characteristic over another is not warranted IMO. I don't think the courts can dictate that to any school.
However, if they are specifically targeting Asian Americans in an unfair way (e.g. they are deliberately lowering their other scores) and if this can be reasonably inferred from the facts, then they need to correct that. There are many ways to see this.
Whoever wins or loses, though, I doubt Harvard will be faulted for affirmative action favouring disadvantaged groups per se. It's possible to be treating Asians unfairly without the problem being affirmative action in favour of Blacks and Latinos...mainly Blacks, of course. In fact, if I were Harvard, I'd have extra points or criteria for descendants of slavery and poverty or single-parent homes, separate from "demographics".
Edit:....Oh wait! It just occurred to me that all these may be what Harvard is looking at under "demographics"....I immediately assumed demographics is a stand-in for race but this assumption is unwarranted. It also includes women and LGBT for example...At least that's what I assume. Many people assume that Black people are the only ones who benefit from Affirmative action. In fact, I believe women have been the group that's most benefitted...White women to be specific. It may very well be that these agreeable people getting high personality scores are White women. Which is ok IMO.
-
The State University of Texas won the SCOTUS case on affirmative action recently - specifically the demographics Kadame cites. Harvard should win this one - and the alleged anti-Asian bias can be corrected without impeding affirmative action.
-
Harvard admitted to some bias in 2013,but later buried the report. Whether the case proves bias or not, it’s clear Harvard deliberately capped a minority admission. But if the minority is already over represented, can this bias be legitimate?
-
Are American-Asian the majority or minority. You knows South Asia & Indians (foreign students) could be "biasing" the American Asian minorities.
In any case I think lots of "in-born" bias are so subconscious you cannot legislate against.
-
They took away marks because they're asian. That's racism. They won't be able to bury this one. Asia is a force to be reckoned with. Asia is definitely not a minority in the trade sector. I started my boycott today by omitting all things Havard from the newsletter. I'm in charge of the newsletter. Includes speakers, conferences etc etc fck off havard!
-
This is an interesting take on the subject. It's behind a paywall, but I will paste it here. What a lot of people seem to be missing or ignoring is that the SAT score is just one of several metrics that a college can use to measure the student's potential. I will pick a Turkana kid demonstrating the same(or even slightly less) levels of knowledge as an Asian-American kid from a highly educated parent family any day.
In 2015, Indian-American Vijay Chokal-Ingam, brother of actress Mindy Kaling, went public with his story of posing as a black man to benefit from race-conscious admissions policies at medical schools. He claimed in a CNN story that affirmative action “destroys the dreams of millions of Indian-American, Asian-American, and white applicants for employment and higher education.”
Chokal-Ingam applied to 14 schools and was admitted to just one, St. Louis University. He only applied using his false “black” identity, and although he never applied as an Indian-American, he assumes that he got into St. Louis University because he was “black.”
Students for Fair Admissions, led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has also advocated rolling back voting rights for minorities, is suing Harvard University for discrimination against Asian-Americans. Last Friday, the plaintiffs filed for a summary judgment, claiming their case is so strong that no trial is necessary. The case claims that a 2009 study shows that Asian-Americans must score at least 310 points higher than black applicants and 130 points higher than Hispanic applicants to get into a highly selective school. Never mind that this is a gross misinterpretation of the findings in the study, the lawsuit fits perfectly with Chokal-Ingam’s questionable narrative that black and Latino students are advantaged, and Asian-Americans are penalized, in university admissions.
Perhaps the most incendiary claims made by Blum’s organization are that Asian-American students were rated lower than other students on “personality” traits by admissions officers and that if these personality traits were omitted from the process, Asian-Americans would be admitted at a much higher rate than they were during the period reviewed by the plaintiffs.
The fact is, black and Latino students do not have an advantage over Asian-Americans in the US education system, including higher education. The odds of black and Latino high-school graduates enrolling in college are much lower than for Asian-Americans. Further, Asian-Americans are more likely to attend an elite private four-year institution than any other racial group. Unless one believes that there are innate intellectual differences in the abilities of black and Latino students versus Asian-American students, these trends can only indicate unfair differences in learning opportunities.
Which brings us back to the assumption that Asian-Americans face a penalty in admissions when it comes to test scores. While many assume that high performance on standardized tests results from hard work and studying, research suggests otherwise. Among the most important predictors of test scores are parents’ education and income. Few who believe in meritocracy would advocate for admitting students based on these two criteria. And yet, that is, in effect, the argument of those who believe that standardized tests should stand alone above dozens of other measures of promise that post-secondary institutions routinely use in making admissions decisions.
Test scores, of course, do play a major role in admissions, and many Asian-American students benefit tremendously. Not coincidentally, they are also much more likely than the average American to have highly educated parents and high household incomes. Why? Selective immigration policy has recruited highly-educated immigrants (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/aap-aap0000069.pdf) from Asia, especially since 1991, when the parents of many Asian-American college applicants arrived in the United States.
The personality traits rated by admissions officers are likely to be associated with overcoming challenging life circumstances. One of the realities of being black or Latino in America is that your group on the whole has more opportunities to demonstrate the ability to overcome challenges like substandard schools and poverty — much in the same way that white and Asian-American students on the whole have more opportunities to translate private test preparation and access to honors and advanced placement courses into impressive transcript statistics. It is also the case that Asian-Americans who do not attend high-performing schools or who did not benefit from selective immigration policies (such as the children of refugees from Southeast Asia) will be well-served by the current whole-student approach to admissions.
A common refrain among Asian-American students who believe that they have faced unfair treatment in the admission process echoes Vijay Chokal-Ingam’s: If only I were black, I would get into the school of my dreams. This sentiment ignores the everyday experiences of both black and Asian-American students. To be black in the US educational system is to live farther from high-quality schools than Asian-Americans, to be referred to gifted-programs at lower rates (even when demonstrating the same levels of achievement (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/11/cover-inequality-school.aspx)), and, because race and income are so highly correlated, to face differential opportunities even within the same schools (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/inequality-public-schools/395876/).
No student should face discrimination in education, but that conversation should not start with Vijay Chokal-Ingam’s story. Chokal-Ingam, using his “real” Asian-American identity, got into and graduated from an elite private institution (the University of Chicago). He has no direct evidence, since he never applied with this identity to medical school, of racial discrimination. His story is an affront to students who face real racial inequality in education.
Janelle Wong is a professor of Asian-American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. David Silver graduated from Harvard Graduate School of Education and is a senior researcher for the Center for Evaluation and the Study of Educational Equity at RTI International.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/17/telling-wrong-story-about-racial-discrimination-education/g8Fsvasy3Aff0Xv4r3QGzL/story.html?event=event25
-
This is an interesting take on the subject. It's behind a paywall, but I will paste it here. What a lot of people seem to be missing or ignoring is that the SAT score is just one of several metrics that a college can use to measure the student's potential. I will pick a Turkana kid demonstrating the same(or even slightly less) levels of knowledge as an Asian-American kid from a highly educated parent family any day.
In 2015, Indian-American Vijay Chokal-Ingam, brother of actress Mindy Kaling, went public with his story of posing as a black man to benefit from race-conscious admissions policies at medical schools. He claimed in a CNN story that affirmative action “destroys the dreams of millions of Indian-American, Asian-American, and white applicants for employment and higher education.”
Chokal-Ingam applied to 14 schools and was admitted to just one, St. Louis University. He only applied using his false “black” identity, and although he never applied as an Indian-American, he assumes that he got into St. Louis University because he was “black.”
Students for Fair Admissions, led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has also advocated rolling back voting rights for minorities, is suing Harvard University for discrimination against Asian-Americans. Last Friday, the plaintiffs filed for a summary judgment, claiming their case is so strong that no trial is necessary. The case claims that a 2009 study shows that Asian-Americans must score at least 310 points higher than black applicants and 130 points higher than Hispanic applicants to get into a highly selective school. Never mind that this is a gross misinterpretation of the findings in the study, the lawsuit fits perfectly with Chokal-Ingam’s questionable narrative that black and Latino students are advantaged, and Asian-Americans are penalized, in university admissions.
Perhaps the most incendiary claims made by Blum’s organization are that Asian-American students were rated lower than other students on “personality” traits by admissions officers and that if these personality traits were omitted from the process, Asian-Americans would be admitted at a much higher rate than they were during the period reviewed by the plaintiffs.
The fact is, black and Latino students do not have an advantage over Asian-Americans in the US education system, including higher education. The odds of black and Latino high-school graduates enrolling in college are much lower than for Asian-Americans. Further, Asian-Americans are more likely to attend an elite private four-year institution than any other racial group. Unless one believes that there are innate intellectual differences in the abilities of black and Latino students versus Asian-American students, these trends can only indicate unfair differences in learning opportunities.
Which brings us back to the assumption that Asian-Americans face a penalty in admissions when it comes to test scores. While many assume that high performance on standardized tests results from hard work and studying, research suggests otherwise. Among the most important predictors of test scores are parents’ education and income. Few who believe in meritocracy would advocate for admitting students based on these two criteria. And yet, that is, in effect, the argument of those who believe that standardized tests should stand alone above dozens of other measures of promise that post-secondary institutions routinely use in making admissions decisions.
Test scores, of course, do play a major role in admissions, and many Asian-American students benefit tremendously. Not coincidentally, they are also much more likely than the average American to have highly educated parents and high household incomes. Why? Selective immigration policy has recruited highly-educated immigrants (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/aap-aap0000069.pdf) from Asia, especially since 1991, when the parents of many Asian-American college applicants arrived in the United States.
The personality traits rated by admissions officers are likely to be associated with overcoming challenging life circumstances. One of the realities of being black or Latino in America is that your group on the whole has more opportunities to demonstrate the ability to overcome challenges like substandard schools and poverty — much in the same way that white and Asian-American students on the whole have more opportunities to translate private test preparation and access to honors and advanced placement courses into impressive transcript statistics. It is also the case that Asian-Americans who do not attend high-performing schools or who did not benefit from selective immigration policies (such as the children of refugees from Southeast Asia) will be well-served by the current whole-student approach to admissions.
A common refrain among Asian-American students who believe that they have faced unfair treatment in the admission process echoes Vijay Chokal-Ingam’s: If only I were black, I would get into the school of my dreams. This sentiment ignores the everyday experiences of both black and Asian-American students. To be black in the US educational system is to live farther from high-quality schools than Asian-Americans, to be referred to gifted-programs at lower rates (even when demonstrating the same levels of achievement (http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/11/cover-inequality-school.aspx)), and, because race and income are so highly correlated, to face differential opportunities even within the same schools (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/inequality-public-schools/395876/).
No student should face discrimination in education, but that conversation should not start with Vijay Chokal-Ingam’s story. Chokal-Ingam, using his “real” Asian-American identity, got into and graduated from an elite private institution (the University of Chicago). He has no direct evidence, since he never applied with this identity to medical school, of racial discrimination. His story is an affront to students who face real racial inequality in education.
Janelle Wong is a professor of Asian-American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. David Silver graduated from Harvard Graduate School of Education and is a senior researcher for the Center for Evaluation and the Study of Educational Equity at RTI International.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/17/telling-wrong-story-about-racial-discrimination-education/g8Fsvasy3Aff0Xv4r3QGzL/story.html?event=event25
That's an excellent summary of what equality and affirmative action are about.
-
I think the point is, the personality tests are horribly subjective,and that subjectivity is skewed against Asians. Maybe that’s why they are so secretive about the process. Affirmative action is sweet, but like meat eaters,we don’t want to know what the animal underwent before it landed on our plate.
-
Something doesn't add up about this case. If they are referring to Asian Americans from India and not China or Korea then this is fake news. I say this because I assess scholarship applications that come from all around the world, and the ones coming from India don't meet the cut. The ethnicity of the scholarships awarded were from East Asia or the Middle East, none from India, Anglo or European. I've assessed over a hundred scholarship applicants from India and Bangladesh but none were high performing students. The high performing students were from East Asia, Middle East like Iran or Africa.
-
This is interesting. Asian-American is too broad. India alone is 1.2 billion +. The term should be replaced with something else denoting people from India and surrounding lands like Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka; You should have a different one for ethnicities from the middle East and North Africa, a separate one for central Asians, another for East Asians, and a separate one for Polynesians. But I guess in the US where these numbers are tiny it makes sense to group them together but that may eschew the picture as that article seems to suggest. It may be that some Asians who wouldn't cut it if the SATs were the only standard are cutting it based on these other criteria because they've overcome war, being a refugee, migrating, being a 1st or 2nd generation migrant in a new land without strong support due to poverty etc etc etc
I remember back in the day the best student from every district would go to the National School of their choice and some from North Eastern ended up getting in with 100 marks less than the others and the parents on the enrollment day were all worried that the kid wouldnt hack it. He had the lowest of all the rubbles and by far. Come end of first term exams, there would be a very different story told. Lol. I guess that was kind of affirmative action because if they went by strict KCPE results, only kids from Nairobi and some other few towns would get in. Not because they're smarter but because they are better prepared for the exams. For the previous 8 years. It wasn't perfect but by saying first from each tiny place, they were judging them more fairly than just strictly looking at the marks on a national list of top to last.
I guess Harvard is attempting to do something similar with the different criteria. Because even in Nairobi, you have kids from Korogocho and Kibera and what have you who get locked out because their parents cant afford to give them good preparation.
-
That makes sense for secondary schools but not for colleges. Colleges welcome anyone with filthy money not the I saved up my life's savings so my kid can go to college. Scholarships are strictly marks regardless of what a terd he/she might be and where they come from. This is the spectrum high performing students fall under. If they don't have good marks then they aren't considered high performing and will need to compete in terms of how rich their parents are, extracurricular activities, their gender, ethnicity, prove their worth etc. etc. it's better to get a taste of the real world sooner than later.
-
Something doesn't add up about this case. If they are referring to Asian Americans from India and not China or Korea then this is fake news. I say this because I assess scholarship applications that come from all around the world, and the ones coming from India don't meet the cut. The ethnicity of the scholarships awarded were from East Asia or the Middle East, none from India, Anglo or European. I've assessed over a hundred scholarship applicants from India and Bangladesh but none were high performing students. The high performing students were from East Asia, Middle East like Iran or Africa.
I think you are conflating scholarships and admissions. Asian-Americans and Asians. Asian-Americans are children of very highly educated parents or themselves very highly educated immigrants. In the US this tends to apply across the board with the exception of Hmong people(and maybe Vietnamese).
Janelle Wong is saying that they generally have an advantage of being well prepared for the SAT portion of the admission requirements. By default, this leaves them poorly prepared on the other measures - such overcoming institutional hurdles - that are readily available to a slave descended Negro in the ghetto or the child of an orange picker in some valley in California.
-
Something doesn't add up about this case. If they are referring to Asian Americans from India and not China or Korea then this is fake news. I say this because I assess scholarship applications that come from all around the world, and the ones coming from India don't meet the cut. The ethnicity of the scholarships awarded were from East Asia or the Middle East, none from India, Anglo or European. I've assessed over a hundred scholarship applicants from India and Bangladesh but none were high performing students. The high performing students were from East Asia, Middle East like Iran or Africa.
I think you are conflating scholarships and admissions. Asian-Americans and Asians. Asian-Americans are children of very highly educated parents or themselves very highly educated immigrants. In the US this tends to apply across the board with the exception of Hmong people(and maybe Vietnamese).
Janelle Wong is saying that they generally have an advantage of being well prepared for the SAT portion of the admission requirements. By default, this leaves them poorly prepared on the other measures - such overcoming institutional hurdles - that are readily available to a slave descended Negro in the ghetto or the child of an orange picker in some valley in California.
You’ve made a case for affirmative action. The Asians have a headstart. I think the point is the criteria applied. It is so subjective and borders on stereotypes
-
Another link that sheds some light on Asian performance on SAT. They practice taking SAT tests more than other groups.
A new study has found that East Asian American students (those whose families come from China, Japan or Korea) are significantly more likely than other Asian Americans and members of all other racial or ethnic groups to take SAT preparation courses, and to benefit from such extra coaching.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses