The most interesting response in the New York Times to Ron Unz's demonstration that Ivy League colleges appear to have implemented a quota cap on Asian admissions is "Scores Aren't the Only Qualifications" from Rod M. Bugarin, an elite college admissions professional who identifies as Asian-American. He doesn't deny Unz's charge, but tries to explain the reasons top colleges discriminate against Asians:
From my experience of watching college students learn, grow and develop on elite campuses, I rarely found the skills that are validated by standardized tests to be those that enhance classroom discussions or the interpersonal dynamic when doing research with peers and professors.
Having been one of those students who "enhance classroom discussions" (obviously, I'm biased, but I don't think my assertion that my presence tended to make class discussions livelier and more intellectually interesting sounds all that far-fetched), and having two sons who do the same, I am sympathetic to this viewpoint.
On the other hand, I am not sure that the college admissions process is at all set up to assess this potential accurately. Some colleges do one-on-one interviews, and most ask for letters of recommendation, but it's not at all clear that these vague instruments are terribly successful at identifying individuals who improve discussions and team projects. For example, I had lavish letters of recommendations from high school teachers and college professors about how much I benefitted the educational community, but then so do lots of applicants. I made sure to get a recommendation from my one high school teacher who had a Harvard Ph.D.. He wrote an exceptionally intelligent endorsement, but did it go over the heads of admissions workers?
What really works, I imagine, is for prep schools that have a long and deep relationship with elite colleges to make confidential assessments: "The faculty here at Groton is in near unanimous agreement that this applicant adds more to classroom discussions than any Groton student since Bill Smith four years ago, whom you will have noticed just became a Rhodes Scholar. As you know, we value our relationship with Harvard's admissions' committee over all others, so we would not steer you wrong when we call your attention to this applicant's intangibles." That kind of thing coming from a top 100 prep school would probably swing some weight, while recommendations from teachers and staff at non-elite high schools probably don't get taken too seriously because of small sample sizes.
Policies like affirmative action give admissions officers the liberty to identify those candidates who surpass expectations of what is “qualified,” bringing talents, interests, skills and perspectives that make learning in the college community an enriching experience for everyone. Without practices like affirmative action, admissions officers are constrained to select only those who demonstrate a very narrow set of skills, which is not necessarily what our nation and economy need.
Bugarin is conflating the terms "affirmative action" and "holistic admission," which isn't unreasonable.
I believe that all students, regardless of their ethnicity, can take pride that when applying to a highly selective institution that embraces the principles behind affirmative action, each document in your file is scrutinized to find subtle reasons that make you a great fit.
Asian and Asian-American students should embrace affirmative action because it allows you to present yourself as a complete person instead of reducing yourself to a test score. More important, a campus community composed only of students who have aced standardized tests cannot match the dynamic, diverse ethos that currently exists.
More than three decades ago, a teacher at the most elite prep school in Los Angeles (the one in Coldwater Canyon) told me, with approval, that its admissions department routinely discounted the test scores of Asian applicants to keep classes from being overrun by students who only speak up to ask, "Will this be on the test?"
I’m sure that many students, particularly Asian and Asian-Americans, would not find Ivy League schools as desirable if their campus communities only valued competitive, high-stakes testing where only a few are given the opportunity to succeed.
And that is likely true.
Yet, the unfortunate reality is that highly selective campuses do not have enough room on their campuses to admit every student they find compelling. Affirmative action is one of many tools that helps my former colleagues make these subjective decisions in the most humane way possible.
You'll notice that the government applies very different standards to different organizations. For example, the theory of disparate impact is applied often and strictly to fire departments. The FDNY's hiring test -- questions about how to fight fires -- was thrown out by a federal court solely because of disparate impact. Now, here is an insider more or less admitting that elite colleges practice disparate treatment discrimination based on the hunch that a Wong is less likely to speak up in class than a Goldman or a Huntington, but where are the demands that Harvard show us the studies they have undertaken to prove this stereotype? I'm not saying they couldn't do that, but I sure would like to read those secret studies ... assuming they exist, which I doubt.
(A generation ago, Harvard let Robert Klitgaard, a statistically sophisticated social scientist who had worked in Harvard admissions, publish a 1985 book, Choosing Elites, recounting various admissions moneyball studies that Harvard had done, focusing most on the Class of '75. But I haven't heard much since then out of the murky world of college admissions. I'd be particularly interested in Harvard's models of what kind of alumni donate the most to Old Harvard's annual fund drives.)
Asians-make-a-duller-campus is the kind of stereotype that's pretty obvious (white Berkeley in the 1960s v. Asian Berkeley in this century is a historical comparison that leaps to mind), but not particularly easy to quantify, and not easy to defend in public.
But, shouldn't the Harvards be asked to at least demonstrate that they've narrowed their stereotypes intelligently rather than painting with a broad racial brush? I can see South Asians in my readership raising their hands, saying, "Hey, us South Asians aren't afraid to talk. Why do we have to get lumped in with East Asians?" And I can see American-born East Asians saying, "I'm not totally shy like the FOB East Asians like my parents." And I can see East Asian children of American-born East Asians saying, "Hey, I'm pretty much like all the white kids I grew up with in our mostly white neighborhood, so don't lump me in with the East Asian kids born in a high test score ghetto like Arcadia." Or, "Hey, I'm only half Asian, and I got white personality genes." Etc Etc
But, in the long run, Harvard will get away with lots of stuff that FDNY wouldn't dream of trying, because it's Harvard.
Posts
45 comments:
Now, here is an insider more or less admitting that elite colleges practice disparate treatment discrimination based on the hunch that a Wong is less likely to speak up in class than a Goldman or a Huntington, but where are the demands that Harvard show us the studies they have undertaken to prove this stereotype?
According to Unz's article, aren't the "Huntingtons" more discriminated against than the "Goldmans" and "Wongs"? So on based on what "hunch" are the "Huntingtons" discriminated against the most?
Huntington is a Puritan surname that, on a per capita basis, might be the highest achieving in American history. The late Harvard professor Samuel M. Huntington is one of about 25 or 30 American Huntingtons who have their own Wikipedia page: Huntington Beach, Huntington Gardens, Huntington, WV, Huntington's Disease, Huntington Test Prep, etc etc.
How can there be a threat if there is no real campus culture anymore, in any virtuous sense, and what is there isn't worth saving? The old days of Harvard as a WASP finishing school are long dead and what remains is overrated and overpriced.
As Steve himself refers, the reason people pay money who attend schools like this is to make contacts that one hopes will land a six figure job and pay off the student loans. He also notes that there's high school teachers with Ivy PhDs, so that tactic may not work.
My own Ivy degree isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
And I can see East Asian children of American-born East Asians saying, "Hey, I'm pretty much like all the white kids I grew up with in our mostly white neighborhood, so don't lump me in with the East Asian kids born in a high test score ghetto like Arcadia."
That's a really small sample size, and even then, I'd challenge it. East Asians cocoon, for the most part (as do South Asians), and even when they don't, they insist their kids follow the usual routines.
At the SAT cram school where I teach part time, it's quite normal to see kids from Michigan or Texas spending summers out here for only one reason: to attend the cram school.
Unz argues that an elite college like Harvard's student composition would be roughly 70% white gentile, with the rest Jewish and Asian, and virtually no blacks and Hispanics, if its admissions were solely determined by academic merit. So the assumption here is that this composition - 70% white gentile - would detract from campus life, which is nonsense.
Huntington is a Puritan surname that, on a per capita basis, might be the highest achieving in American history.
Harvard today should be packed with Huntingtons, then, like it was decades ago. But it's not.
Whooops, hit enter too soon.
While I agree with your point that Harvard should be required to verify its stereotypes with data, I still think the best approach is the one I proposed: eliminate grades entirely as a comparison point, widen the test burden to include both humanities and math/science, increase the impromptu essay burden, and wipe out foreign language tests.
In an America furiously moving towards vibrancy, how much longer will it be before it dawns non-Jewish European Americans (NJEA) that in is now in their interests to embrace strict racial quotas? Sure there may be a few working class jobs lost to blacks and Mexicans but there will be plenty of elite university places and well-paid corporate gigs where NJEA’s will benefit from strict quotas. It is time for NJEA’s to stop worrying about the big picture and to start looking out for their particular interests. The Clinton era slogan of workplaces and colleges “looking like America” should now be NJEA’s go to talking point.
One of the good points in this post is that person of type X wouldn't want to go to Yale if it was made up completely of people of type X. It's a restatement of the idea that having type Y enriches the experience for people of other types.
That's false, as far as I can tell, for racial minorities--- at least to a measurable extent. It's true, tho for other groups. Notably: it's good for the alumni kids to have some nerds, and good for the nerds to have some alumni kids. If the Jewish kids had made up 50% of Harvard students in 1940, Harvard would have become a lot less attractive for Jewish kids.
It would be interesting to know whehter what's happened is that Asians have taken over the entire Nerd quota.
See also, Google and Apple and Facebook and Microsoft, all of which use defacto IQ tests without censure from the Justice Dept. Because they're the cool ones.
Steve, I'm a little embarrassed to have to point this out, but in writing about high-status admissions & judgment, you made a lower-status grammatical error:
>>I can see South Asians in my readership raising their hands, saying, "Hey, us South Asians aren't afraid to talk. Why do we have to get lumped in with East Asians."
It's "Hey, we South Asians.."
Sorry to have to be picky.
The focus on Asians when discussing Affirmative Action/holistic admissions vs. academic merit admissions is actually quite bizarre if what Unz claims is true, because the Asian proportion changes the least between the status quo Affirmative Action/holistic admissions and academic merit admissions. The proportion of other groups are most affected.
I bet they are trying to keep out these Asians:
"So despite speaking perfect English since age three and acing the verbal portion of the SAT, I would get confused about simple expressions (like "fish out of water") as badly as a hilariously innocent robot (or exchange student) in a family comedy. I also got laughed at for pronouncing things like they look ("Plymouth" = "Ply Mouth"). Worst of all, due to our family never dining at any other Western restaurant, I thought Denny's was good."
http://www.cracked.com/article_18603_the-6-worst-parts-being-chinese-not-in-stereotypes_p2.html#ixzz2FozftCXf
"In an America furiously moving towards vibrancy, how much longer will it be before it dawns non-Jewish European Americans (NJEA) that in is now in their interests to embrace strict racial quotas?"
That won't work because Jews will argue that it is racist to not consider them white if the purpose is to diminish their numbers.
I read the alumni magazine from my Ivy League college and it is clear that they have no use at all for white male gentiles except possibly hard leftists. It is all about women, Jews, and racial minorities. I give them $10 for alumni giving early in the year so they don't bother me.
Here's an idea to make some easy money.
TALKATIVE TUTORING CLASSES.
Imagine the following scenario of an Asian parent:
"I want my kid go to good school but I hear good school no like kids got good grades and do good exam but no talky talky. So, I want my kids talky more in school."
So, Talkative Tutoring teaches Asian students to talk more in class. What kind of questions to ask, what kind of comments to make, and etc.
But I suspect that even if yellows become more talkative, Ivies will look for other reasons to controlling their numbers.
Uh... they don't sing and dance enough.
But that will give us an opportunity to make more money with song-and-dance tutoring schools.
Here's an idea for drama majors to make lots of money.
So, far learning drama and acting has been about succeeding in movies, theater, and etc.
But as Reagan said of politics, much of life is about putting on an act. It's not enough to know stuff. One has to learn how to 'act' right.
So, how about a drama department that teaches acting not for the acting profession but for all the other professions.
Acting Lawyer 101
Acting Salesman 101
Acting Politician 101
Acting Pundit 101
etc.
Conservatives should look into it.
Steve, I'm a little embarrassed to have to point this out, but in writing about high-status admissions & judgment, you made a lower-status grammatical error:
>>I can see South Asians in my readership raising their hands, saying, "Hey, us South Asians aren't afraid to talk. Why do we have to get lumped in with East Asians."
It's "Hey, we South Asians.."
Sorry to have to be picky.
Yes, you should be embarrassed, because you've shown that you don't understand linguistic register.
"Us South Asians are..." is part of the standard informal, conversational register of North American English. "We South Asians are..." is part of a higher, more formal register. Steve used the correct register for his context.
Cennbeorc
a Wong is less likely to speak up in class than a Goldman or a Huntington
... or a Wright. Roughly half as often.
Education Realist wrote:
'And I can see East Asian children of American-born East Asians saying, "Hey, I'm pretty much like all the white kids I grew up with in our mostly white neighborhood, so don't lump me in with the East Asian kids born in a high test score ghetto like Arcadia."'
East Asians who go native aren't any more likely than the Whites to get scores that would get them into Harvard.
"From my experience of watching college students learn, grow and develop on elite campuses, I rarely found the skills that are validated by standardized tests to be those that enhance classroom discussions or the interpersonal dynamic when doing research with peers and professors."
That's horseshit. Brighter and more knowledgeable students bring alot more to the discussion than dimwits.
Furthermore, how much more does a black American kid from a middle class home who got in over more talented students by his skin color, actually add in terms of real diversity and enriching conversation to contribute about life struggle to conversations compared to a poor third world kid from half way around the earth who was the only kid like himself in school, who had to learn to be fluent in a completely different language, adapt to a completely different culture, and earned his way into a top school through hard work and achievement despite these things?
The Harvard admissions committee clearly doesn't believe that two Wongs make a Wright.
Ivy schools already have way too many Asians. how many whites go to u. of Tokyo? Shanghai?
@Thomas Ye
Foreign students are over-privileged dimwits all of the time. The black kid is preferable if only because he isn't the bored son of some third-rate Saudi Prince looking to do something other than rape South Asian guest workers and trip on ecstasy.
Why do all these asians want to go to these white schools? If they were allowed to take over a school then it would become another asian school that asians dont want to go to, just like all those ones back home in asia.
Bugarin may be Jewish, his name a namesake of the Bukharin Jews of Central Asia, denoting a descendent of that group.
Witness the arrogance of some Asiatic immigrants to the United States and their disdain for the American people:
Actually, your comment proves the lack of reading comprehension or understanding of simple stats by some of you "European derived peoples".
If you read and understood the article, you would realize that Asians would be represented even more-so in the top 10 if little Billy didn't get in with his oh so pedestrian 2100 SAT score. End white affirmative-action!
Ok enough of this, I have to tend to my butler.
--Raji Raj
And this:
Hey guess what Bubba, if your kind starts discriminating because they can't compete against us, we'll just up and move and go somewhere that wants to have a competitive edge. You start turning on your best and brightest immigrants, then all your industries that depend on these individuals will crumble. Think Silicon Valley, medicine, NASA, etc. Did you know 1/4 of the dept heads at DARPA are Indians?
Now back to what you misunderstood - if we let meritocracy take place, there would be EVEN MORE Asians at these schools, understand?
Ok, now I must leave for some beauty rest.
--Raji Raj
http://www.businessinsider.com/ivy-league-discriminates-against-asians-2012-12?pundits_only=0&get_all_comments=1#comment-50d3ae4369bedd741100000f
That's horseshit. Brighter and more knowledgeable students bring alot more to the discussion than dimwits.
I wouldn't read it that he's saying those skills are useless per se, just that discussions between two rather unimaginative, uncommunicative, low trust, conventional and low self confidence high IQ persons, for example, would not yield useful results. Which I think is not a bad contention.
However, like Steve is saying here, there is a lot of difficulty is testing the ability to of individuals to contribute to group work.
Take last year's "Group IQ" study which found that the only useful predictor in the quality of group problem solving was not the presence of high IQ individuals but the number of women in the group.
And this is solving real IQ test problems like the Raven's, which are treated as the gold standard for g, not some kind of irrelevant problems.
But this obviously does not replicate in the real world - society would have noticed if a group of 5 women just had a way simpler time working out e.g. the mechanics for an unfamiliar mechanism or maths problem than a group of 5 men, or if 5 low iq women had an easier time planning a resourcing exercise than 5 high iq men.
Normal individual IQ tests (which the SAT is really like) are vulnerable to motivation and other situational issues (there is research that found money rewards affects final score within a group, in non-equal ways, i.e. some participants scored relatively higher within group when offered cash rewards) but any group IQ tests are obviously going to be much worse in this regard.
So while there might be a contention that Asians of IQ level X have worse social and team abilities than Whites of IQ level X (their societies have some social quirks like extreme levels or at least very different patterns of rudeness and rule boundness and often don't seem to coordinate that well, intellectually), it's hard to demonstrate and even if we had some kind of group IQ type measure, we'd still hear a cry that it was due to team circumstances towards Asians (and it would very difficult to be that confident that this was not the case, even if that wouldn't be a particularly favored hypothesis).
"Did you know 1/4 of the dept heads at DARPA are Indians?"
And 100% of those departments staffs ?
The people in charge of DARPA offices are guys (and women) with names like Woodbury, Bailey, Tompkins
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Personnel/
Elite universities right now are like vaudeville theaters at the dawn of the TV era or weekly news magazines at the dawn of the internet - they are dead men walking. Right now they have a commodity that is still valued and they get to play all kinds of fun and unfair exclusion games like every other club in history. (Ivy schools reject something like 9 out of 10 applicants). But that's all about to change.
My daughter is just back from her 1st semester at MIT. Here is a data point - she says that a lot of the kids don't bother to attend the live lectures anymore. Instead they watch the recorded lectures on their laptops. These lectures are available not just to MIT students but to everyone on earth thru the Open Courseware system. Not only are the recorded lectures more convenient but they usually record the best professor teaching that course, who is often better than the guy currently teaching the course live.
There used to be a whole network of vaudeville theaters in every city in America. If you wanted to hear a comedian or a singer, you had to go to one of those theaters. There were thousands of mostly mediocre acts plus a few stars. Then TV was invented and a handful of the very best vaudeville players made the transition and everyone in America could watch George Burns or Milton Berle in their living room. And thousands of mediocre comedians and singers had to open liquor stores and dry cleaners because all the vaudeville theaters closed.
Someone (who is going to make a LOT of money off of this) just has to figure out how to close the loop and offer a verifiable credential and some ancillary services to go with the lectures. You'll watch the lectures on your computer and go to a local Kaplan center or something like that to take the exams. Kaplan will also hire excess PhDs to act as teaching assistants, offer "office hours", etc. You could get a superstar quality education for maybe 10 or 20% of what an Ivy degree costs today. Right there in Iowa and without any stinky exclusionary games.
The point here is we don't want the Asia to Harvard pipeline displacing Americans, whether they test better or not.
Asians have dominated academically (Westinghouse/Intel, etc.) since at least the late 80s, but they have not had the kind of cultural or economic impact you would expect from such performance. Whatever the merits or demerits of their admissions policies, they appear to be headed in the right direction vis-a-vis Asian applicants.
Their discrimination against non-Jewish whites, OTOH, is probably more significant. Given an Asian student and a non-Jewish white student with similar test scores and GPAs, the white student is probably far more likely to go on to do something of cultural, economic, political, or even scientific importance.
A few time Sailer has suggest that in 21st century America it's advantageous to be black (all else being equal). I would revise this hypothesis to say in 21st century America, it's advantageous to be mulatto (all else being equal). This is the optimum racial status; black enough to benefit from affirmative action, tokenism and white guilt, but white enough to avoid racism, stereotypes and colorism.
The majority of African Americans who make it to the top of American life (Obama. Powell, Condi Rice, Eric Holder, Valarie Jarret, Mohammed Ali) seem mulatto rather than black. While this is partly because mulattoes tend to be brighter than blacks, that's probably not the full story.
For actual blacks to make it to the top, they have to be spectacularly talented (Oprah, Chris Rock, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Alan Keyes) or make cosmetic changes (Michael Jackson) or adopt white friendly politics (Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes)
The further one deviates from the optimum racial status of mulatto (in either direction) the more barriers to success one faces. So just as dark skinned African Americans are too black to rise to the absolute top of America, East Asians face discrimination because they are too white if you will (i.e. too cold climate adapted).
On a scale of (functional) genetic distance, where pure negroids are a 10, and East Asians are a 0, whites are about a 3 and mulattoes are about 6. 6 is the optimum number and the further you deviate from 6 (in either direction) the harder it will be too succeed in 21st century America. No one deviates more from a 6 than East Asians (who are a 0), which is why they achieve less money and power than would be expected given their high IQ and conscientiousness. Ashkenazi Jews are probably a 4 (given the middle east's genetic affinity to sub-Sahara) and the combination of being both smarter than white gentiles but not being too white, translates into enormous wealth.
But there's nothing better than being a 6 who is also very bright and driven. For such people the sky is the limit (Obama).
Re: But, in the long run, Harvard will get away with lots of stuff that FDNY wouldn't dream of trying, because it's Harvard.
Yes, and maybe if the Republicans identified their enemies (institutions of higher ed) with their potential friends (white blue collar workers) and actually imposed the former's own policies upon them, while slackening them in the case of the latter, they might win elections.
You never know...
"The point here is we don't want the Asia to Harvard pipeline displacing Americans, whether they test better or not."
The point here is that the people who started the Ivy League universities don't have to justify their admissions policies to anyone. Asian-Americans are free to attend all the universities in America they founded themselves, like that one in Cali...no wait, like that one in Massa...no wait, like that one in Ala...no wait, like that one on Washin...no wait, like that one in Neva...oh damn, I can't really think of any. Well I'm sure there are one or two.
....free to attend all the universities in America they founded themselves.
So Harvard and Yale are just for members of the Mayflower Society? So I guess if you're Irish or German and your ancestors came over in the 19th century, no dice - Notre Dame or Georgetown for you (unless your people were Protestants, I guess). Or maybe Germans and Irish are OK but Jews and Italians - no way. Where do the French and Belgians fit in? What American universities did they found? What if you are 1/2 Pilgrim and 1/2 Catholic - do you go to Harvard for 2 years and then transfer to Georgetown? I have a headache already and it's only 5 minutes into your idiotic system.
" Ivy schools already have way too many Asians. how many whites go to u. of Tokyo? Shanghai?
12/22/12 6:57 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
@Thomas Ye
Foreign students are over-privileged dimwits all of the time. The black kid is preferable if only because he isn't the bored son of some third-rate Saudi Prince looking to do something other than rape South Asian guest workers and trip on ecstasy."
Nice reply. Unfortunately it was in no way a reply to anything that I wrote about.
"Why do all these asians want to go to these white schools? If they were allowed to take over a school then it would become another asian school that asians dont want to go to, just like all those ones back home in asia." - Social networks and status. They know better than anyone else what its like to live in a knowledge based economy: Who you know is how much you get.
"So Harvard and Yale are just for members of the Mayflower Society?..."
Not really the point. The point is that it's for these private universities to decide. Otherwise what's the point in being private? If they decide they want to limit the percentage of Asians at their school then so be it.
In my view, Harvard is not a public accomodation.
"So I guess if you're Irish or German and your ancestors came over in the 19th century, no dice - Notre Dame or Georgetown for you..."
Interesting that you mention two Catholic schools. In your view are Catholic schools allowed to insist that a large share of their students are Catholic? Is Howard allowed to insist that a large share of its students are black? Is the University of Texas allowed to insist that a large share of its students are Texans? Are Ma and Pa Smith allowed to insist that their savings fund their son, Billy Smith, rather than, oh, Krishna Patel?
Under your idiotic system the answer to all of these questions would be "no."
The point here is that the people who started the Ivy League universities
are a long time dead and they are currently run by Jewish people who seem mainly fixed on recruiting more Jewish people, if you check what Unz's data actually says.
Under Unz's data:
A half-Jewish half Asian guy who declares as White and Jewish has an advantage, and is disadvantaged by declaring as Asian.
A half-"Gentile" half Asian guy who declares as White and a Gentile has an disadvantage, and is advantaged by declaring as Asian.
Interesting, hmm? It's what the bulk of the article is about and exactly what Razib Khan and Steve Hsu, for example, completely gloss over.
The Legendary Linda:
No one deviates more from a 6 than East Asians (who are a 0), which is why they achieve less money and power than would be expected given their high IQ and conscientiousness.
Poor old Native Americans at -1 or so....
"But there's nothing better than being a 6 who is also very bright and driven. For such people the sky is the limit (Obama)."
As has been pointed out here countless times (are you new?), B.O. is not "bright" at all, much less "very bright." If he were "bright" (maybe you the teleprompter is bright) -- he wouldn't hide his academic past, he would have actually written a few words on the law, as editors of the Harvard Law Review (normally) are wont to do; or he would have actually taught something at the law school in Chicago, instead of being despised by his fellow professors as a lazy do-nothing.
As for "driven" -- I can't even see that, he's so laze. Watches more sports and plays more golf than any president on record. Even Bush II gave up golf in respect for the troops. B.O. gives up nothing for anyone if he can help. Can't talk about anything except the blackness of his self and his reputed father. God what an empty headed nothing.
And no, he is not "driven." Others drive. He's passively complicit, and along for the ride. The media is there to make sure he doesn't become totally useless weight.
Ivy schools already have way too many Asians. how many whites go to u. of Tokyo? Shanghai?
And don't forget the fact that degrees from U of Tokyo or Shanghai are far less valuable than degrees from the Ivy League. I think the best way to ensure reciprocity is to express things in terms of dollars. No, allowing an American immigrant into China does not reciprocate for allowing a Chinese immigrant into America, because the dollar value of the former is far lower than that of the latter.
I have a headache already and it's only 5 minutes into your idiotic system.
Don't worry, we'll work it out. And every system we have on the table excludes you.
"Hey guess what Bubba, if your kind starts discriminating because they can't compete against us, we'll just up and move and go somewhere that wants to have a competitive edge."
Please do so. Leave, that is. We'll just have to suffer without you. You can see from your post that you should not be a US citizen, it's just going to lead to trouble. Also, it's not clear that anything you (or your group) claims to have achieved is due to your own merit or is an act of AA, a hail mary hope to find someone with dark/black skin who can provide US blacks with a role model and enable the AA-imposers to point and say, "See! That black one's okay!"
You might actually be brilliant, but one can never tell for sure these days and the more experience one gets the more what you describe (all the dept heads!) is usually the government's effort to make AA Halmark cards. Other stuff, like merit, is way secondary.
The world is a big place, look forward to the future. On the off-chance that you are bitter about this discussion being in English, about modern technology being developed in the West, and about the history of colonialism in relation to whatever your land of origin, please don't try to impose your bitterness on us or make it our problem. We've got enough problems of our own. Let's see you do a good job taking care of yours.
Post a Comment