On the other side of "social invisibility" lies life of being "trophy" talent/socialite acquaintance/romantic partner, and, the most dreaded one, the life of diversity hire.
You do have to admire the intense racial resentment at work here. There's no evidence at all that these Asian Americans aren't boring cookie-cutter kids when compared to the broader pool of applicants. The headline literally reads 'Harvard admissions have a broader perspective than Alumni interviewers' ... duh. But this non-story is enough to summon up all sorts of wild accusations and intense paranoia that somehow, somewhere the blacks are being given an unfair advantage.
Among elite Universities that initially do a holistic review of applicants to narrow down the applicant pool, URM status is viewed as the most important factor for an applicant by 42% of the universities, equal to the number of schools that view "exceptional talent" as the most important factor. Being a URM is basically equivalent to being an "exceptionally talented" non-URM in the eyes of many elite colleges' admissions boards.
Look up average SAT scores of different ethnic groups admitted to elite colleges as well. The disparity is glaring.
Now, we can argue that giving URM's a leg up in admissions is justified. I'm willing to have that discussion. But let's be realistic about the facts here.
Then only problem with saying "everybody is the same" is that its not true, but when you say everybody is not the same, people use it to discriminate against them.
“There's no evidence at all that these Asian Americans aren't boring cookie-cutter kids”
Ah yes, a classic case of proving the negative. What about extracurriculars? What’s your criterion?
There’s no evidence at all that other races “aren't boring cookie-cutter kids”, as you put it. Yet the fact that Asian Americans perform better academically implies you are claiming otherwise:
“Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria.”
baybal2|7 years ago
dnomad|7 years ago
You do have to admire the intense racial resentment at work here. There's no evidence at all that these Asian Americans aren't boring cookie-cutter kids when compared to the broader pool of applicants. The headline literally reads 'Harvard admissions have a broader perspective than Alumni interviewers' ... duh. But this non-story is enough to summon up all sorts of wild accusations and intense paranoia that somehow, somewhere the blacks are being given an unfair advantage.
ardent_uno|7 years ago
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new-research-...
Among elite Universities that initially do a holistic review of applicants to narrow down the applicant pool, URM status is viewed as the most important factor for an applicant by 42% of the universities, equal to the number of schools that view "exceptional talent" as the most important factor. Being a URM is basically equivalent to being an "exceptionally talented" non-URM in the eyes of many elite colleges' admissions boards.
Look up average SAT scores of different ethnic groups admitted to elite colleges as well. The disparity is glaring.
Now, we can argue that giving URM's a leg up in admissions is justified. I'm willing to have that discussion. But let's be realistic about the facts here.
ksk|7 years ago
throwaway37585|7 years ago
Ah yes, a classic case of proving the negative. What about extracurriculars? What’s your criterion?
There’s no evidence at all that other races “aren't boring cookie-cutter kids”, as you put it. Yet the fact that Asian Americans perform better academically implies you are claiming otherwise:
“Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria.”
So enlighten us.