US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1991

Harvard doesn't want to have to get rid of those Legacies to make room for better scoring students. Suddenly there all the things people are against happening for black students suddenly becomes okay when it's white students losing seats they didn't earn.

On May 21 2015 09:51 wei2coolman wrote:
TBF to Harvard, they're a top notch school that consistently pumps out some of the most successful graduates.

On May 21 2015 10:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:

Getting in as a legacy is nowhere near as easy as people make it sound. Your parents have to have donated large sums of money (not just a couple of thousand in total), recruited large numbers of graduates, or have been very active in alumni activities. The people who get in only because they're legacies or incredibly wealthy have the money and power to influence various organizations and have literally no bearing on whether some random Asian kid gets in. Let's stop pretending that Emma Watson going to Brown prevented some other kid from getting in, or that Chelsea Clinton's going to Stanford hurt someone else's chances of getting in. Those rare .01% of cases are anomalies and have almost no impact on the average person.

In other words, if a nonlegacy applicant faced a 15-percent chance of admission, an identical applicant who was a primary legacy would have a 60-percent chance of getting in.

On May 21 2015 10:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:

Getting in as a legacy is nowhere near as easy as people make it sound. Your parents have to have donated large sums of money (not just a couple of thousand in total), recruited large numbers of graduates, or have been very active in alumni activities. The people who get in only because they're legacies or incredibly wealthy have the money and power to influence various organizations and have literally no bearing on whether some random Asian kid gets in. Let's stop pretending that Emma Watson going to Brown prevented some other kid from getting in, or that Chelsea Clinton's going to Stanford hurt someone else's chances of getting in. Those rare .01% of cases are anomalies and have almost no impact on the average person.

On May 21 2015 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yes but by denying better performing students for legacies (or minorities for that matter) it indicates that it's not (at least entirely) based on their academic performance. I don't think GWB was as stupid as people made him out to be but he obviously didn't get his success based primarily on his ability. Like I said it's a social club with a university attached.

The idea that the exclusivity of Ivy-leagues is academically based has always been at least partially bull, it's just now being easily exposed by the Asian students with undeniable statistics.

On May 21 2015 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:

To be fair, the problem with many Asian student applicants is that their academic abilities really are just academic abilities.

It's not just the Asians that present this problem, of course, but it is something that's very prominent in Asian education culture, the concept that your success is entirely based on academic scores and nothing else.

On May 21 2015 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yes but by denying better performing students for legacies (or minorities for that matter) it indicates that it's not (at least entirely) based on their academic performance. I don't think GWB was as stupid as people made him out to be but he obviously didn't get his success based primarily on his ability. Like I said it's a social club with a university attached.

The idea that the exclusivity of Ivy-leagues is academically based has always been at least partially bull, it's just now being easily exposed by the Asian students with undeniable statistics.



Wat?





Source

On May 21 2015 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yes but by denying better performing students for legacies (or minorities for that matter) it indicates that it's not (at least entirely) based on their academic performance. I don't think GWB was as stupid as people made him out to be but he obviously didn't get his success based primarily on his ability. Like I said it's a social club with a university attached.

The idea that the exclusivity of Ivy-leagues is academically based has always been at least partially bull, it's just now being easily exposed by the Asian students with undeniable statistics.



Wat?





Source

Mr. Hurwitz's research found that legacy students, on average, had slightly higher SAT scores than nonlegacies.

On May 21 2015 10:23 wei2coolman wrote:

Oh, how interesting, so your saying an academic institution shouldn't base acceptance on academic scores? Lmao

On May 21 2015 10:35 Slaughter wrote:
To be fair, academic markers like SAT and GPA have never been the only thing universities look at. Judging from conversations with teachers I know their students (this is elementary level) who spend time in both Asian and American educational systems apparently parents and kids prefer the latter. Sure they are way advanced in knowledge but memorization and regurgitation seem to be the main emphasis and little development of creativity and critical thinking is done. That and apparently these kids actually feel engaged and have fun in American schools. Granted this is a just from conversations with like 2 teachers who both teach at private schools, but that seems to be the kind of attitude people have towards the Asian systems: great for creating zombies who know a fuck ton but have shit actual thinking skills, skills being way to narrow for adapting to the real world, and are prone to burnout.

On May 21 2015 10:28 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:

Really, using data from 2011 when admissions gets more competitive every year? It also is not talking about only Harvard, or even only Ivy League schools. The top thirty includes schools like Wake Forest and Georgetown which, while they are good, are not anywhere near as selective as Harvard, MIT, or Stanford.

It also says:



If a student has slightly higher SAT scores and all of the same other qualities, but is also a legacy, why doesn't he deserve to get in? Legacy can just make a strong candidate even stronger, as evidenced by the data in the the article such as the chart on SAT scores and percentage increase in being admitted based on being a legacy. If the students are as competitive (or even more competitive, in some cases), why should they not be admitted? You even said earlier that Asian students who are more qualified lose their spots to less qualified applicants. If they have higher SAT scores on average and just about the same qualities in other regards, does it really matter?

Mr. Hurwitz's research found that legacy students, on average, had slightly higher SAT scores than nonlegacies. But he was able to control for that factor, as well as athlete status, gender, race, and many less-quantifiable characteristics. He also controlled for differences in the selectivity of the colleges.

On May 21 2015 10:37 wei2coolman wrote:

Lmao the amount of racism in this post is hilarious. Some how if a white guy playd guitar he's creative, if an asian plays piano/violin he's a zombie.

On May 21 2015 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Well first of all, I disagree with the premise that Asian applicants are notorious for not offering anything except exceptional academics on college applications. I've heard quite a stereotype or two about playing the violin/ piano/ flute/ any other instrument exceptionally well too, and I'm sure they do just as much charity work as any other group of people o.O

But to address your point, universities aren't only academic institutions, nor do they pretend to be. They rant and rave about how you should be a well-rounded applicant, because they're also looking for role models in other spheres of influence (organizations, athletics, research, etc.), not *only* getting a 4.0 in your major.

On May 21 2015 10:37 wei2coolman wrote:

Lmao the amount of racism in this post is hilarious. Some how if a white guy playd guitar he's creative, if an asian plays piano/violin he's a zombie.

On May 21 2015 10:43 Slaughter wrote:


Um no? People's critiques and misconceptions of an educational system does not equal racism on their part. I always try to remind them that they are essentially getting their information from a small sub group of people who are upper class and a tiny sample but people always seem to prioritize their personal experience over the bigger picture when they are forming their opinions.

You also just pulled your 2nd sentence right out of your ass and shoved it in my mouth just so you could drop the racism card.

On May 21 2015 10:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Playing an instrument is very much an education prestige thing as well, for the adults. At least when it comes to a certain type of parent, and a certain type of student.

Want to be clear that I'm not talking about Asian applicants in general, but the ones with the impeccable grades aiming for all those high-paying career choices. The whole Asian dad thing might be a funny stereotypical joke, but it's very much based on a real thing.

Kind of, yeah...

There's obviously a lot of Asians that will take up an instrument because they love music. But there's also quite a few that will take up the piano, violin, etc. and have nothing but classical music drilled into them, because there's prestige in it. And quite often it's the parents that make them take it up early, and they continue it because the parents expect it of them.

On May 21 2015 10:43 Slaughter wrote:


Um no? People's critiques and misconceptions of an educational system does not equal racism on their part. I always try to remind them that they are essentially getting their information from a small sub group of people who are upper class and a tiny sample but people always seem to prioritize their personal experience over the bigger picture when they are forming their opinions.

You also just pulled your 2nd sentence right out of your ass and shoved it in my mouth just so you could drop the racism card.

WASHINGTON -- The push by President Barack Obama and Republicans for gigantic new trade deals meets the definition of insanity, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) charged in a Senate floor speech Wednesday.

The president and Republican leaders are pushing hard to pass legislation known as Trade Promotion Authority that allows a White House to fast-track trade deals through Congress with no amendments, no procedural hurdles or filibusters, and a simple up-or-down vote in limited amount of time.

That fast-track authority likely would make it possible for the Obama administration to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a dozen Pacific Rim nations, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe. Together, those pacts would cover about 80 percent of the global economy.

The much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement of the 1990s covered about 10 percent of the word's trade, and Reid said that deal and many since have all been disastrous for American workers, costing millions of jobs.

"It causes huge job losses," Reid said. "As Einstein said, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, and you expect a different result, that's the definition of insanity."

"We can look at these trade bills over the years -- every one of them without exception causes to American workers job losses. Millions of job losses," Reid added. "But yet they're going to try the same thing again and hope for a different result. That's insanity."

Obama has tried to counter such complaints by pointing to some of the benefits of free trade deals, insisting they do create jobs, and that his will be the "most progressive" trade pact in history. He's also accused people like Reid and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of "making stuff up."

On May 21 2015 11:21 wei2coolman wrote:

Assuming that premise is true, how do admissions office account for this, other than a straight up bias on denying Asians into the school ?

On May 21 2015 11:21 wei2coolman wrote:

Assuming that premise is true, how do admissions office account for this, other than a straight up bias on denying Asians into the school ?

Whether or not they favor either school system, doesn't deal with the fact that the Asian school system creates a much stronger base of knowledge than the American school system. Also the idea that somehow american school system fosters more creativity over Asian school system is the same bullshit that creates those studies that American kids are #1 in confidence despite being #26th in education. LMAO, the only thing American school system is good at creating is ignorance.

also if you think the average american high school graduate has more critical thinking skills than the average asian high school graduate, you've just bought into the shit fed propaganda that american educational system is still "good". lol.

wanna know why Asians overpopulate top-tier educational systems in America? because their parents implement similar Asian style educational system to their kids, on top of the shitty base American educational system.

On May 21 2015 11:33 Slaughter wrote:


Do you even read my posts? Or are you essentially just restating what I said in a confrontational way because you like to be a douche?

On May 21 2015 11:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:

That's why you end up writing long essays for your University application, talk up your extra-curriculars, etc. And if you have 50 applications from Chinese kids that are all basically "I've got good grades, I'm a hard worker, and I play piano at a Grade 10 RCM level", then you've got some people you can sort through.

Obviously not foolproof or 100% accurate, but as I said, there's a reason why University's are becoming more focused on finding well-rounded students over the ones with perfect grades.



And if you want a self-deprecating anecdote about Asians and music: Me and my brother played piano. Most of my Chinese friends played piano. Almost all of the children of Chinese family friends played piano. Number of us that kept playing after high school? Big fat zero.

And none of us even have the really hardcore Asian parents. Most of us were raised more Canadian than Chinese, too.