Jump to content

Affirmative actions at elite STEM institutions screws asians not whites


rukawa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Basically Asians are massively and ridiculously over-represented in a number of elite scientific and technical institutions (high schools, universities, tech companies etc). Typically Asians are like 5% of the population but control 30-70% of the spots. Whites are under-represented as are blacks and latinos.

 

You can go after whites but the problem is that whites are already extremely under-represented. Whites can and should make the case that they are being heavily discriminated against. That leaves Asians which are the juicy target having a huge over-representation. There is no way affirmative action will not screw Asians.

 

Examples of this include companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

 

Universities include most in the California university system or MIT

 

Schools include schools like Thomas Jefferson High School which is probably the top technical high school in the country (there high school compsi course are basically university level)

 

If your an Asian (Indian or Chinese), you need to bend over now because the Left is going to screw you hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what exactly you're saying but I'm pretty sure it just isn't true. 

 

The reality is that purely meritocratic admissions at the nation's top universities would increase the number of whites and decrease the number of asians, blacks, and hispanics.  Here is how things would change:

 

- A little more than half (53 percent) of those admitted would not be those being admitted today. These are the students with SAT scores below 1250.

- The resulting student body would be wealthier, on average, than the current student body. In the class studied, 60 percent came from the top quartile in socioeconomic status, but in a test-only system, 63 percent would come from that bracket.

- The big change would be enrollment by race. The white share would go from 66 percent to 75 percent. The combined black and Latinx enrollment would drop from 19 to 11 percent. The Asian share would drop from 11 to 10 percent.

 

Source (study linked within): https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/06/24/analysis-considers-how-enrollments-would-change-under-test-only

 

It's a very big country with lots of whites who, coming out of high school, probably represent 80-90 percent of potential chemistry majors at the top 200 universities.  Specialized high schools are a complicated story because the fact they are so asian likely dissuades many white parents (and likely even Indians -- for example, Stuyvesant attracts smart, poor, Bangladeshis relatively speaking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Asians are massively and ridiculously over-represented in a number of elite scientific and technical institutions (high schools, universities, tech companies etc). Typically Asians are like 5% of the population but control 30-70% of the spots. Whites are under-represented as are blacks and latinos.

 

You can go after whites but the problem is that whites are already extremely under-represented. Whites can and should make the case that they are being heavily discriminated against. That leaves Asians which are the juicy target having a huge over-representation. There is no way affirmative action will not screw Asians.

 

Examples of this include companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

 

Universities include most in the California university system or MIT

 

Schools include schools like Thomas Jefferson High School which is probably the top technical high school in the country (there high school compsi course are basically university level)

 

If your an Asian (Indian or Chinese), you need to bend over now because the Left is going to screw you hard.

 

If you are Asian in this country, have perfect 800's on your SAT's, a music virtuoso, etc - expect not to get into your favorite school - because you

are correct - the admission boards will screw you over. Thank the woke Universities for playing to mobs. But if you are Obama's kids, expect to

get full scholarships anywhere you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Asians are massively and ridiculously over-represented in a number of elite scientific and technical institutions (high schools, universities, tech companies etc). Typically Asians are like 5% of the population but control 30-70% of the spots. Whites are under-represented as are blacks and latinos.

 

You can go after whites but the problem is that whites are already extremely under-represented. Whites can and should make the case that they are being heavily discriminated against. That leaves Asians which are the juicy target having a huge over-representation. There is no way affirmative action will not screw Asians.

 

Examples of this include companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

 

Universities include most in the California university system or MIT

 

Schools include schools like Thomas Jefferson High School which is probably the top technical high school in the country (there high school compsi course are basically university level)

 

If your an Asian (Indian or Chinese), you need to bend over now because the Left is going to screw you hard.

 

If you are Asian in this country, have perfect 800's on your SAT's, a music virtuoso, etc - expect not to get into your favorite school - because you

are correct - the admission boards will screw you over. Thank the woke Universities for playing to mobs. But if you are Obama's kids, expect to

get full scholarships anywhere you like.

 

Just imagine. The president's kids getting a full ride at the university of their choosing. 

 

I think if you really go Hercule Poirot on this shit you may find that the offspring of the super-connected often manage to play leapfrog in the admissions line.  Tiffany was choosing between Harvard, Columbia, and Georgetown Law.  She must've knocked the lights out during her sociology and urban studies degree at UPenn.

 

So maybe Obama's kids aren't a great example of the broader issue.  But yeah, Obama.  Super bad president and human in general.  Obama bad.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Asians are massively and ridiculously over-represented in a number of elite scientific and technical institutions (high schools, universities, tech companies etc). Typically Asians are like 5% of the population but control 30-70% of the spots. Whites are under-represented as are blacks and latinos.

 

You can go after whites but the problem is that whites are already extremely under-represented. Whites can and should make the case that they are being heavily discriminated against. That leaves Asians which are the juicy target having a huge over-representation. There is no way affirmative action will not screw Asians.

 

Examples of this include companies like Google, Microsoft, Facebook.

 

Universities include most in the California university system or MIT

 

Schools include schools like Thomas Jefferson High School which is probably the top technical high school in the country (there high school compsi course are basically university level)

 

If your an Asian (Indian or Chinese), you need to bend over now because the Left is going to screw you hard.

 

If you are Asian in this country, have perfect 800's on your SAT's, a music virtuoso, etc - expect not to get into your favorite school - because you

are correct - the admission boards will screw you over.

 

Only a sucker actually takes the SAT. Real "winners" pay somebody else to take it for them:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-cheated-on-his-sat-penn-wharton-mary-trump-2020-7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is all the Asian kids want to get into Ivy Leagues.

But Ivy League graduates work as a slave for banks.

The really well off white rich people’s kids go to small liberal arts college (and they still get those ibank internships). They Don’t want to go to Ivy leagues- those are for kids of engineers and farmers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comment is tongue in cheek. But when you look at how policy is picked in these types of cases, its largely predicated on stereotypes. Who cares about Asians? They make up a smaller percentage of the population than Black/Hispanic and definitely dont rely on government to the same extent. They are comparable to the journey of Irish or German Americans in a historical context. Came over. Put the head down. Worked hard. Beat the shit out of the confines of any systematic oppression. Used adversity as a motivator rather than an excuse. Taught the same to future generations. The antithesis of the Democratic Party.

 

So when it comes to the above topic....who cares if an overqualified candidate gets squeezed out? The objective is to get under-qualified candidates in! Then we can use them as tokens of accomplishment to showcase the success of our platform!

 

The folks who may have it the worst within the Asian sub groups, I am beginning to see, are possibly Indians. They're not black. Not the right type of brown. Basically get ignored along with Chinese/Japanese when it comes to any of these social benefit programs. I mean when you have a historic first, currently an Indian woman on the ticket as VP, and its ignored so she can be called black....that says a lot about how the party operates.

 

Everyone should be treated as equal and all discrimination should be rebuked. Academia is one of the unique places where discrimination and harmful ideologies are not only rampant, but encouraged and widely accepted. And when you look at the institutional breakdowns, along party lines....its not 90% Republican/conservatives....

 

The quickest way to earn your stripes in America has always been to bust your ass and work hard. Its sad when we see policies that punish that or promote the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Academia is one of the unique places where discrimination and harmful ideologies are not only rampant, but encouraged and widely accepted. And when you look at the institutional breakdowns, along party lines....its not 90% Republican/conservatives....

 

Perhaps it is more meritocratic than you imagine  ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So when it comes to the above topic....who cares if an overqualified candidate gets squeezed out? The objective is to get under-qualified candidates in! Then we can use them as tokens of accomplishment to showcase the success of our platform!

 

The folks who may have it the worst within the Asian sub groups, I am beginning to see, are possibly Indians.

 

Everyone should be treated as equal and all discrimination should be rebuked. Academia is one of the unique places where discrimination and harmful ideologies are not only rampant, but encouraged and widely accepted.

 

The quickest way to earn your stripes in America has always been to bust your ass and work hard. Its sad when we see policies that punish that or promote the opposite.

 

+1 - it's so, so obvious. Asians/Indians don't whine and complain like the BLM/LGBTQ crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was once a guy liberals liked who said he dreamed of a society where you were judged by the content of your character not by the color of your skin.  Unfortunately the leftists of today think that is racist.  A colorblind society is no longer a liberal goal.  A society where being 1/1024th of a minority group gives you bragging rights and advantages over others is what's considered social justice and is what they are after.  The left's views on race today is as sick and twisted as their economic views.  The left is a lost cause.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was once a guy liberals liked who said he dreamed of a society where you were judged by the content of your character not by the color of your skin.  Unfortunately the leftists of today think that is racist. A colorblind society is no longer a liberal goal.  A society where being 1/1024th of a minority group gives you bragging rights and advantages over others is what's considered social justice and is what they are after.  The left's views on race today is as sick and twisted as their economic views.  The left is a lost cause.

 

With respect I think this is a lazy analysis and overly general.  There are plenty of liberal-leaning people that hold a colorblind society as a goal, but have a different view than you on how to get to there from here.  Some folks believe in a "sink or swim" paradigm, and others feel this is an unfair position to take after holding someone's head underwater, so they want to offer support (ranging from flutterboard to yacht, apparently). 

 

Consider the similar issue of gender diversity in academics.  Let's simplify by pretending it's 1999 and there are 2 genders.   

 

There's a crazy male/female imbalance in many STEM areas.  There are surely many reasons for this, but I think you'd have to contort yourself not to admit that some amount of lingering bias in the system (after centuries of overt bias) is playing a role. 

 

So we have a complex machine that is producing output that most folks agree is undesirable. Nobody knows exactly how the machine works, but a bunch of well-meaning people really want to alter the output.

 

Unfortunately, in my view, the conversation now gets hijacked by people who ascribe to the motto that doing something is always better than doing nothing, which in many cases just isn't true.  The machine is complicated.  Turning dials closer to the input is difficult and requires great patience, as these changes take a long time to percolate.  So instead people focus on tweaking the machine closer to the output.  For example, with regards to academic hiring, this often results in murky rules that are either so broad as to be useless or so specific that they are grossly unfair to male candidates.

 

I'm personally of a mixed mind on this issue.  The ingrained gender bias is not apparent if I just go about my day, yet at the same time it's obvious if I pay attention.  I want things to be different.  However, it kills me to see better qualified candidates lose out because of social engineering.    Smart colleagues of mine tell me that the system just needs a big push toward another equilibrium -- that the  unfairness to some candidates in the short-term is unfortunate but necessary collateral damage along the way.

 

This message is a bit meandering.  If you're still with me, a summary:  Painting important issues in stark "Right" vs "Left" language isn't helpful.  I think modern media is amplifying fringe opinion and we're losing sight of the fact that there are a lot of good people out there who share many common goals but have different views on how to reach them.  For my kids' sake I hope the trend toward divisiveness and tribalism begins to reverse sometime in the next decade. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about all this gender oppression stuff.  The preeminent lady physicist to date was a Jew in Germany in the 1930s and the only person to win two real Nobel prizes was a Slavic woman born in the 19th century.  Women used to make more substantive contributions at the highest levels of math and science a century ago than they do today, and I think you can actually infer a lot about the proclivities and idiosyncrasies of a population by looking at the very right end of the curve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno about all this gender oppression stuff.  The preeminent lady physicist to date was a Jew in Germany in the 1930s and the only person to win two real Nobel prizes was a Slavic woman born in the 19th century.  Women used to make more substantive contributions at the highest levels of math and science a century ago than they do today, and I think you can actually infer a lot about the proclivities and idiosyncrasies of a population by looking at the very right end of the curve.

 

I very much doubt this is true.  I'm more familiar with math than science.  Examples?

 

Also:  John Bardeen and Frederick Sanger each won two Nobel prizes, physics and chemistry,  respectively.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant first, not only, person to win two real Nobels.

 

I was thinking Marie Curie and Emmy Noether, and I can't think of anyone today nearly as eminent relative to the top as those two were in their time.  Jennifer Doudna is a more recent name that comes to mind, and of course Maryam Mirzakhani.  I guess it's hard to compare since the magnitude of discovery has fallen across the board (no man alive is a Planck, Einstein, or even close). 

 

Unfortunately I at least intuitively feel quite strongly about this though I'll gladly admit evidence is a little sparse.  For what it's worth, you see the same thing with blacks as well.  Stuyvesant used to have more blacks in the 1970s than it does today.  I'm pretty sure the man who coded the first UNIX shell was black.  Thomas Jefferson is said to have thought quite highly of the amateur astronomer born a slave, Ben Banneker (and they were all amateurs in some manner, back then).  No doubt there are at least a handful more examples from the past I am forgetting.  Today -- without the impediments of literal slavery or segregation and despite enormous subsidy and funding -- I can't really think of anything comparable.  Again, I might be reasoning a little too much from the very right end of the curve which I think is harder for society to game, but I bet you'll see the same if you look at black enrollment at specialized high schools over time. 

 

It really is quite apart from the story of European Jews who very quickly ascended from superstitious folk segregated in their ghettoes to the very top of French and German science after emancipation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's hard to compare since the magnitude of discovery has fallen across the board (no man alive is a Planck, Einstein, or even close).

 

Exactly.

 

I'd wager most Americans can't name a current contributing physicist, but they know who Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's hard to compare since the magnitude of discovery has fallen across the board (no man alive is a Planck, Einstein, or even close).

 

Exactly.

 

I'd wager most Americans can't name a current contributing physicist, but they know who Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are.

 

To be honest it's not obvious to me there has been much contribution to begin with.  I have a lay interest in this stuff and can immediately appreciate the beauty and elegance of prewar science, whereas I have no idea what it would mean if theories of leading physicists today turn out to be true or false, or what true and false even mean.  And that's not just a question of things getting more specialized (a common retort).  People loved science when they could appreciate its meaning, and that hasn't really been the case since the Apollo program (and that was all old science). 

 

Commercial science is probably a more apt place to look for substantive contribution. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's hard to compare since the magnitude of discovery has fallen across the board (no man alive is a Planck, Einstein, or even close).

 

Exactly.

 

I'd wager most Americans can't name a current contributing physicist, but they know who Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are.

 

To be honest it's not obvious to me there has been much contribution to begin with.  I have a lay interest in this stuff and can immediately appreciate the beauty and elegance of prewar science, whereas I have no idea what it would mean if theories of leading physicists today turn out to be true or false, or what true and false even mean.  And that's not just a question of things getting more specialized (a common retort).  People loved science when they could appreciate its meaning, and that hasn't really been the case since the Apollo program (and that was all old science). 

 

Commercial science is probably a more apt place to look for substantive contribution.

 

I honestly don't mean to fling insults, but I think your comments/opinions here are based in ignorance.

 

The pace of scientific discovery has increased exponentially over the past century.  Lots more "noise" due to publish-or-perish, of course, but a relentless stream of incredible advances along the way.  Things were just getting started with the Apollo program.

 

Just in the bucket of easily-comprehendible mathematics:  the 4-colour conjecture and Fermat's last theorem were proved, public-key cryptography and neural networks went from theory to every-day practice, quantum computation / quantum information theory was born, fast-Fourier transform was perfected (though admittedly it was born in the 1800s), compressed sensing,  huge advances in discrete and continuous optimization...and of course tonnes of more esoteric examples, such as the proof of the Poincare conjecture.  The list goes on and on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific progress often occurs in Cambrian explosions. Currently we are seeing Cambrian explosions in medical (remember how recent humanized antibodies are or genetic sequencing) and astrophysics (enabled through better optics and detectors, image processing). Just twenty years ago, scientist were debating if one could ever use the immune system to develop drugs/treatments against cancer because it was debatable if one could developthem discriminating enough and look at where we are right now with blockbusters like Keytruda and gen technology treatment on the market.

 

Scientific progress is always enabled by  technological progress and vice versa. Astrophysics is a great example where better optics and detectors enable progress (finding Exoplanets, Black matter, Black holds etc)  and sometimes scientists need to wait for the technology to catch up before they can get better data and make more progress, so sometime the wheels seem to move slowly and sometime they seem to go really fast in a particular field, but they are always moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discovery of the Higgs Boson was quite important and was discovered at CERN, which is publicly funded primarily by EU states.

 

CERN, for all its scientific prowess, is really bad at accepting scientific evidence when it comes to racism and sexism (they sacked a scientist who disected some numbers for them) that doesn't align with the general view. And CERN, and this is based on personal experience, has entered the era where men think women don't deserve what they get because their qualifications are lacking and women think that men get the upper hand in everything (especially around running the experiments). The end result is a relatively toxic environment of mistrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what exactly you're saying but I'm pretty sure it just isn't true.

 

The reality is that purely meritocratic admissions at the nation's top universities would increase the number of whites and decrease the number of asians, blacks, and hispanics.  Here is how things would change:

 

I'm talking about STEM...Science, technology, engineering and Math. Not Harvard or the ivy's in general. And your study is basically irrelevant since it assumes that everyone is equally likely to apply to all programs/universities. They aren't. Asians are more likely to go the STEM route.

 

Since many of the top paying careers are in stem, this applies an Asian Elite in STEM and in America in general. Since the elite is the target of the Left this necessarily implies that Indians and Asians will increasingly be targeted by the Left. To give a few examples:

 

Universities

MIT: 42% Asian

Berkley: 29% Asian

 

Highschools

Bronx Science: 34% Asian

Thomas Jefferson HS: 70% Asian

 

Companies:

Google: 41% Asian in 2020, 31% in 2014

Microsoft: 33%

 

Percentage of Asian in US Population: 5.6%

 

I find two things interesting about the above...1) is that Googles Asian percentage continues to increase and 2) is that holy fuck Thomas Jefferson is 70% Asian. Thomas Jefferson is probably the best high school for programming in the country. It comp sci courses are basically comparable to university courses...you could probably be a programmer straight after graduation. Bronx Science has the most physics nobel prize winners (7) among its alumni of any HS in the entire world.

 

Asians are basically the new Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s correct google, fb, likes have a lot of Asian.

But most of them are immigrants. Tech firms can’t get enough tech talents so they have to hire from China and India, or students born there and graduated in US schools.

There is not much second generation Asian in the tech industry. Most want to become doctors, or do private equity...

 

So there is a different issue involved here, which is globalization and technology and how they are affecting society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...