http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/LSAT-Performance-with-Regional-Gender-and-Racial-Ethnic-Breakdowns-1997–1998-Through-2003–2004-Testing-Years.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771607)

i'm sure there aren't many black yatoris, white kims or hispanic chungs out there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771633)

Blacks actually get +250, not +200 points on the SAT I in admissions to the elite colleges acoordinding the study below.

Please read my thread,

Ivy League Admissions- Merit in Motion

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=411739&mc=125&forum_id=1

with many of my posts deleted by NYCFan, when he was moderator.

The main post which was deleted is reposted here:

Please click on the commentary on the study by Espenshade at Princeton.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories

[Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.

The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants' SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.]

Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don't forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5965621)

African American: 142.43, 8.48

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5988778)

HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771768)

10%OVERCIRCUMCISEDPWNED!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771830)

Though i do think my doctor was a little fucking overzealous...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771843)

Damn Doctor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5771862)

There is a *bimodal* distribution of scores in Asian American scoring on the SAT I, clustered at the lower levels as well as the highest level of scoring. This distribution is very similar to the actual distribution of scoring with two peaks in the SAT I scoring where Asian Americans *outperformed* whites at the *highest levels* of the SAT I test at levels over 650 for Math and at levels over 750 and the perfect 800 on the Verbal, which is quite remarkable, when one considers, that about 39% of all Asian American SAT I test takers reported not having English as their first language.

A possible explanation for this is that of all Asian Americans, about two-thirds of them are foreign born immigrants, and about 15% of all Asian Ams live below the poverty line (about the same % as for Latinos), which are plausible reasons for the bimodal distribution in scores for Asians SAT I test takers as well as Asian American LSAT takers.

If Asian Americans were to compete with whites on a level playing field, that is to say, with all Asian Americans having English as their *first* language, then Asian Americans will most surely outperform whites on the Verbal section of the SAT I on EVERY LEVEL of scoring, from the lowest to highest levels as well as the Math section, resulting in a much higher mean and average scores on the SAT I. That is to say, if one factors out the 39% of the Asian American SAT I test takers who reported having English as a second language, this would occur in the Verbal section.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5965743)

taking the american born asians at my school and at other schools in my area. we pwn whites in all academic subjects.

however, if you include fobs, our pwnage level drops significantly. fobs are idiots.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5965909)

Thanks for the acknowledgement of the simple facts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5965987)

In the book, "America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible" by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, Simom and Schuster, 1997 in Chapter 14, titled "Higher Learning", in Table 4 labeled, "Number and Percent of Black, White, and Asian Students with High SAT Scores, 1981 and 1995": Source; The College Board, Ethnic Data on Scoring, 1981 and 1995, the figures and percentages for each score level are charted.

For example, in 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Math ,107 Blacks scored between 750 and 800, 509 Blacks scored between 700 and 749, 1,437 Blacks scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Blacks was 2,053 or 2.0% of all Black test takers. Total > 700 was 616 or 0.6% or six tenths of 1 percent. Total > 750 was 107 or 0.1% or one tenth of 1 percent.

In 1995, for 103,872 Black test takers, in the Verbal, 184 Blacks scored between 700 and 800, 465 Blacks scored between 650 and 699, and 1,115 Blacks scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 1,764 or 1.7% of Black test takers. Total > 700 was 184 or 0.15% or less than two tenths of 1 percent.

In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 9,519 Whites scored between 750 and 800, 29,774 Whites scored between 700 and 749, and 51,306 Whites between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Whites was 90,599 or 13.4% of all White test takers. Total > 700 was 39,293 or 5.8%. Total > 750 was 9,519 or 1.4%.

In 1995, for 674,343 White test takers of the SAT 1 Test, in the Verbal, 8,978 Whites scored between 700 and 800, 19,272 scored between 650 and 699, and 36,700 Whites scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 64,950 or 9.6%.Total > 700 was 8,978 or 1.3%.

In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Math, 3,827 Asians scored between 750 and 800, 7,758 Asians scored between 700 and 749, and 9,454 Asians scored between 650 and 699. Total > 650 for Asians 21,039 or 25.8%. Total > 700 was 11,585 or 14.2%. Total > 750 was 3,827 or 4.7%.

In 1995, for 81,514 Asian test takers of the SAT 1 Test in the Verbal, 1,476 Asians scored between 700 and 800, 2,513 Asians scored between 650 and 699, and 4,221 Asians scored between 600 and 649. Total > 600 was 8,190 or 10%. Total > 700 was 1,476 or 1.8%.

Therefore, in reference to the above data for 1995, Asians out perform the other two groups at the highest levels of the SAT 1 scores in terms of rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and above in both the Math and the Verbal of the SAT 1 Test. In fact, in the 1999 data given by the College Board: Performance by Ethnic Groups, the rate of attainment or percentage of the total group at each score level above 650 and 700 and 750 and above has risen for the Asian group both independent of and relative to the other two groups.

In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers.

There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total number of White test takers. There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers.

Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%).

Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).

More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.

The racial gaps in scoring have not narrowed and Asian Americans have increased their lead over whites and blacks by outperforming them even more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966067)

Asian Americans now have outperformed whites in the composite scoring of the SAT I (Math and Verbal sections added together) in the latest data, which means Asian Americans have improved in overall scoring more than whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966164)

if the 2nd gen asians have higher scores and the fobs have lower scores, all that needs to happen for the averages to improve is a shift from 40% to 60% 2ndgen+ to fob.

yes asians are smarter, but when we run out of fobs or approach an equillibrium of 2ndgen+ to fob ratio, our average will not increase anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966179)

That's something to think about. This is scary for whites, blacks and latinos, who are in denial and claim that all testing is *racist* and the facts are *racist*, but not for Asian Americans who overcame more obstacles to outperform all the other groups, especially the white group. These facts will even cause more of a backlash against high performing Asian Americans.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966196)

but, it will be interesting to see if the gap can be credited towards genetics or towards culture.

i suspect that if its credited towards culture, there should be a narrowing of the gap soon after it reaches a peak, as more asian families become more assimilated into american culture, fairly quickly.

however, if its credited to genetics, there should be a very gradual narrowing of the gap, as the genetic assimilation would take alot longer than culutral assimilation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966229)

On the average, blacks from families with the highest income levels, over $100k/yr and/or high parental educations with college degrees score lower on the SAT I than Asians/whites from families with less than $30k/yr income and/or parental educations with a high school diploma or less.

This is a well known fact and scholars have been trying to find the answers for the gap.

I think the answer involves a combination of factors which include innnate differences, culture differences, and the stereotype threat against blacks, among others.

I also think culture differences are the main causes, but not the only causes of this gap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5966329)

Read my explanation of this and you may learn something.

I only bumped this thread once. I am not aznaznazn.

HTH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973105)

Whites are not hurt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973113)

Asians may get most of the urm slots, as you noted, but whites would get the rest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973131)

The rest is miniscule.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973135)

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories

[Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.

The authors based their work on models previously developed in a 2004 study where they looked at more than 124,000 elite university applicants' SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability and legacy in combination with their admission decision. This more recent study honed in on more than 45,000 applicants. Both studies are part of the multidimensional National Study of College Experience, which is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.]

Here is the link to the Princeton study. This is the complete paper from Princeton U., “The Opportunities Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, by Espenshade (Chair of Sociology at Princeton) and Chung,

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don't forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973116)

Little =/= none.

As noted (even by the above), whites are in fact hurt by AA, and would increase enrollment if AA were removed. They're just not hurt as much as Asians. And that's assuming that the study is accurate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973132)

Asian Americans are the biggest losers in the zero sum game of race based AA, not whites, by any stretch of the imagination.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973137)

More importantly, you weaken your case by claiming that AA has no effect on whites altogether, and the burden is solely borne by asians. Better to establish solidarity with the dominant group in society, and then point out that AA's discrimination against asians is both unfair and a form of racial discrimination against a minority group.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973150)

Relatively speaking, the BIGGEST LOSERS are Asian Ams, based on a white definition of *merit* for admissions which favors whites and makes whites more *meritorious* than Asian Americans. This definition is always in a state of flux (Merit in Motion) to ensure that their own children remain more *meritorious*.

Admissions is a game, and the results are all relative for each group in the racial schema of admissions.

Asian Americans get the big screw.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973166)

"Whites are not hurt." (In your above post.)

"Relatively speaking, the BIGGEST LOSERS are Asian Ams"

I've already stated this.

"based a definition for *merit* based on a white definition for admissions which favors whites and makes whites more *meritorious* than Asian Americans. This definition is always in a state of flux (Merit in Motion) to ensure that their own children remain more *meritotiou*."

You're insane. The "merit" definition (SAT, etc.) does not hurt Asians -- only AA does that. Most white oppose AA specifically because it's unfair to all strong performers, not just whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973176)

Really? More name-calling. I have just referenced the Espenshade study showing that it does hurt Asian Americans. Athletic preferences are neglible and this is not what hurts Asians. The use of race hurts Asians, favoring URMs, as well as favoring whites.

Again, the use of race hurts Asians, favoring URMs, as well as favoring whites over Asians.

Comprende??

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973306)

Please stop being retarded. You're giving all asians a bad name.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973332)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973500)

You completely ignore the fact that there is also white race based preference AA in elite colleges, benefitting whites in admissions for as long as Harvard, the Ivies and the elite colleges have been in existence. White AA is based on the "soft factors" in admissions, used to ensure whites are more "meritorious" than others, since they are the ones who make the definition of merit. This hurts Asians and the others. These soft factors also include the white dominated athletic preferences in the Ivies, such as LAX, squash, synchronized swimming (an official Olympic sport), archery, sailing, crew, etc.. There ain't too many black or yellow folks in these sports, which farm their propective Ivy players in many of the elite boarding preps. There are many other "soft factors" used by the white adcom to insure that the ones who hold the power to admit appear more "meritorious".

If you only go by your "merit" definition (SAT, etc.), Asians will leave whites behind in the dust. This is the truth of the matter and you are in denial. This scares the shit out of you and you cannot even admit the facts.

Just consider the following again at the highest levels of SAT I scoring for Math section, as well as the Verbal section. These are the levels of scoring which Harvard, the Ivies and elite colleges need to admit to justify that they are indeed *academically elite*.

In 1995, there were only 107 Blacks with a Math score of 750 or above or 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent) of the total number of Black test takers.

There were 9,519 Whites with a Math score of 750 or above or 1.4% of the total number of White test takers. There were 3,827 Asians with a Math score of 750 or above or 4.7% of the total number of Asian test takers.

Asians out perform Whites at 3.4 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 1.4%).

Asians out perform Blacks at 47 times the rate at which they score 750 or above (4.7% vs. 0.1% or one tenth of one percent).

BTW, Asians also outscore whites at the highest level of scoring on the SAT I Verbal, at levels above 750 and 800. These are the levels at which Harvard and the Ivies need to proclaim that they are *academically elite* to counter balance the admission of lower performing race preferenced whites via "soft factors" and race preferenced blacks via the race factor.

More recent data of this nature is not released by the College Board to the general public any more because this data is racially sensitive and *politically incorrect*, but it is the damn truth.

The racial gaps in scoring have not narrowed and Asian Americans have increased their lead over whites and blacks by outperforming them even more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5981890)

"Whites are not hurt." (In your above post.) <<

I quoted from the following:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/80/77I23/index.xml?section=topstories

[Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain -- in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent.]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5991304)

Bullshit.

Read The Chosen by Karabel, and with each instance the word "Jew" is used in the text, substitute the words, "Asian Americans". Nothing has changed in admissions to the Ivies or elite colleges. Jews are not subjected to caps or quotas today. Their quotas are replaced by the de facto Asian American quota.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973181)

What part of this do you not understand? Do you have any reasoning skills whatsoever?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973184)

That has been done, but the real facts of the issue are painful for whites, and others who are "politically correct".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973266)

Actually, most whites already oppose AA for the reasons we've both noted. It's only painful for stupid liberals who don't know any better.

Also, keep in mind that your opinion, and those of your faggot author, =/= "real facts".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973280)

[“Those who are able to define ‘merit',” he writes, “will almost invariably possess more of it, and those with greater resources—cultural, economic, and social—will generally be able to ensure that the educational system will deem their children more meritorious.” ]

From THE CHOSEN by Karabel, as quoted by

Ivy League Universities

Merit in motion

Nov 24th 2005

From The Economist print edition

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5213394

The definition of merit is defined by whites, not by asians, blacks, etc..

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973144)

We both know what merit really means, as does almost everyone on this board. The problem is that it's not currently being weighed objectively in admissions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973157)

C'mon, who cares? Get the big screw, and you just might care. Are you kidding me?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973168)

I didn't say that I supported AA. Clearly, I oppose it.

What I don't care about is that some fag doesn't think merit has an objective meaning. Clearly, it does, and we can both agree on what it means. High test scores and grades = merit.

If everyone is judged on this same objective criteria, everyone who performs well, including asians, would get what they deserved. This is how it should be, right?

Whites have created a fairly meritocratic system over the last 70 years, based primarily on test scores and grades. It is AA which is the recent aberration in the system, pushed mainly by urms and their political supporters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973180)

Absolutely false!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973183)

There are plenty of seats you can compete for on an objective basis. Quit whining and start competing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973205)

Read The Chosen by Karabel. Read about the Jews in the history of admissions to the Ivies. The Jews did more than "whine", they said "Never Again!".

Please stop with your hypocritical views on this matter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973221)

You should've learned how to skate, you pathetic little faggot. Take your faggot ass somewhere where people want to hear you whine, bitch.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973235)

Again, no credible response from you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5976710)

Bullshit again.

You don't know WTF you are talking about.

Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don't forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preferences for whites because the study corrected for these preferences.

Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.

Please read the entire paper by Espenshade.

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973910)

For Columbia Jewish students, the auhor said,

"Since the Protestant upper classes who paid tuition bills had deserted other universities, notably Columbia, where “Hebrew” enrolments were deemed excessive, administrators regarded the increased Jewish presence as both a cultural insult and a threat to their institutional viability."

The author writes and quotes THE CHOSEN by Karabel and makes the analogy between the Jewish applicants to Harvard of yesteryear and the Asian American applicants of today. The same disparagiing arguments and stereotypes used against the Jews in the past are being used against Asian Americans today in limiting their numbers at HYP and especially at H.

Columbia was at one time almost 50% Jewish pre WW II and during its "Golden Era". Columbia ranked in the nation's top 1 or 2 universities (Columbia, Harvard, and U.of Chicago) in the humanities as well as the sciences, according to many accounts during this period. By today's accounts, Columbia is about 30% Jewish for their 2% of the American population. It produced the first tenured Jewish professor in the Ivies, the Nobelist in Physics, I.I. Rabi, who almost single-handedly built Columbia's top ranked Physics Department, by attracting future Nobelists and top ranked physicists from the rest of the world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973234)

Seriously, if you're this stupid, you really shouldn't be worrying about unfairness in college admissions. You clearly bombed the SAT, will bomb the LSAT, and don't have to worry about any of this stuff. Really stupid people aren't really affected by AA one way or the other.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973285)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973469)

Since some players on Harvard's white ice hockey team scored 1000 on the SAT I, the real questions are,

1. How many students at Harvard scored in the lowest quartile on the SAT I, below 1380.

Answer; 400

2. How many of those 400 are white, black, latino, or Asian?

Answer; You tell me, since Harvard will never release this data, because it is damning for its admissions process, especially for whites admitted in the lowest quartile due to soft factors in its admissions process favoring whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5981896)

[The three universities continued to find character almost exclusively in wealthy Protestant boys until the 1960s, when external social upheaval changed their institutional priorities. The student takeovers of university buildings and the violent race riots of that era caused administrators to fear for campus security, and they sought to avoid such disturbances by admitting (and, implicitly, co-opting) more black students. Since few black applicants had high test scores, the admissions definition of merit again had to be turned upside down. Character suddenly stemmed from socioeconomic adversity rather than privilege. Once the principle of diversity as merit was established, all-male Yale and Princeton were hardly in a position to reject the demands of the feminist movement for co-education, which they implemented around 1970.]

The use of *character* in the definition of merit was changed from privilege to socioeconomic adversity, since few blacks had high test scores. However, the majority of blacks admitted are from the middle and upper socioeconomic classes with lower test scores. That's the absurdity and that is what Harvard and the Ivies do today. They justify this by including *diversity* in their definition of merit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973200)

HTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973255)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973269)

You, I suppose.

Learn to play sports and maybe people will stop beating up on you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973276)

Why don't you start a NCAA #1 ranked team for white LAX players?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973313)

The previous one was disbanded at Duke.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973432)

You don't know WTF you are talking about.

Asian American applicants are the ones who lose with the use of race preferences in admissions. Whites don't forfeit spaces for race based AA favoring blacks and Latinos. Asian Americans are being punished and discriminated against in this process. This is independent of the use of the legacy and athletic preference for whites because this study corrected for this. Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.

Please read the entire paper by Espenshade.

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973508)

But eliminating these practices won't turn these institutions into a meritocratic mecca because, as Mr Karabel argues, the concept of meritocracy itself is strategic and flexible, and often in outright conflict with egalitarian aims. “Those who are able to define ‘merit',” he writes, “will almost invariably possess more of it, and those with greater resources—cultural, economic, and social—will generally be able to ensure that the educational system will deem their children more meritorious.” Even today, efforts at Harvard to place more emphasis on the sciences (potentially replacing some wealthier white students with nerdy Asian-Americans) have attracted criticism that they might make the student body too one-dimensional instead of iconoclastic and well-rounded—exactly the same style of disparaging argument used to justify the Jewish quotas of yesteryear. As the book concludes, the unsettling lesson to be learned from a century of purported Ivy League meritocracy is that “the ideal of a meritocracy...is inherently unattainable.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973281)

How exactly would you define merit, and how do you feel admissions should be structured? Maybe that would be more helpful than regurgitating someone else's retarded opinions.

(I think we can both agree that racial discrimination [A.A.] is wrong.)

P.S.: How does your retard author deal with the fact that african-americans are clearly more benefitted by the "merit" ideal of athletic ability? Doesn't seem to fit in with his moronic worldview, does it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973294)

Why don't you start a NCAA #1 ranked team for white LAX players?

The previous one has been disbanded. The beneficiaries of white AA are now under a microscope (and some under indictment) for their behaviour.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973331)

I'm done trying to reason with someone who is clearly dumber than most urms.

Learn to speak/write english, brush up on your basic logical reasoning skills, and you'll find the world much more hospitable.

Good luck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973348)

You have no credible response, nor do I expect any from you.

Try name-calling again. You are good at that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973410)

Hey you are the one who is irrational, Rational thught. Yu are the one one who cannot provide a rational response to hero.You are the fool. The admissions process at harvard and the ivies had never been based on merit. the ivy admission process at HYP has never been a democracy, meritocracy for the past 200 years. There is nothing fair about it. The "merit " of a student applicant at harvard is what is defined as "merit " by Harvard. "Merit " in Harvard's definition is someone who will help Harvard survive. That is the bottom line of Harvard's admission process isn't it? It has nothing to do with grades or SAT scores. It has to do with the "hooks " that you possess. If in the eyes of Harvard the "hooks" that you possess will help it survive, then you will get in, if not then not. That truth is also the same for the rest of the Ivies and many private schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5988698)

LOL!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5991472)

If Harvard determines that a certain group of applicants does not "help the institution survive" why the FUCK should it admit those applicants at the same rate as those applicants that do?

I also agree with Hero that Asians are hurt by AA and "soft factors." But how long would Harvard be "Harvard" if it looked became "Berkley East?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5996903)

Harvard said exactly the same thing about the Jews when it subjected Jews to discriminating quotas. Today, there are no quotas on Jews. Jews are 30% of Harvard for their 2% of the American population. However, the old Jewish quota is replaced by today's anti-Asian quota. Harvard is still Harvard with 30% Jews, and it would still be "Harvard" without the anti-Asian quota.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5997487)

You simply do not know WTF you are talking about.

Many more whites received the athletic preference in admissions to the Ivies and the Elites than blacks, even in the big time sports such as basketball and football. There are not too many black players on these HYP and Ivy teams. They are mostly white. How many blacks are on the LAX, squash, tennis, crew, archery, swimming, synchronized swimming, sailing, wrestling, gymnastics, men's and women's ice hockey teams?? How many blacks are on these teams?

In fact, Swarthmore abolished its football team recently, because it cannot compete academically and athletically by admitting more dumb whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973382)

Answer:

The white adcoms care.

The definition of merit is defined by whites, *fag* or otherwise, not by asians, blacks, etc..

This definition of merit, as defined by whites, is changed periodically and is always in a state of flux, according to their own selfish needs. In other words, this is called "Merit in Motion".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5981879)

Date: June 13th, 2006 8:03 AM

Author: Rational Thought

FWIW, after AA was abolished in California, white enrollment actually declined slightly, with minority enrollment overall increasing due to the asian increase.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5973092)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5976899)

Asian Americans have much lower admit rates based on their race because they are the only non-preferred group in admissions and are discriminated against based on their race alone.

Please read the entire paper by Espenshade.

http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5981873)

NYCFan, aka Byerly, is trolling again for Harvard and Andover on the CC by calling a poster who disagreed with him, "too snotty". For a good laugh, click on:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=202178&page=1&pp=15

"HARVARD again top destination for Andover grads in 2006"

Old Yesterday, 05:51 PM #11

Byerly

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 5,350

Whatever, "Mikey" .... find your own "evidence" of whatever. I provided you the link to the matriculation data - about as complete and up to date a list as you will find for any school in America. If you want to think I am lying about app numbers, second-choice schools, perceived safeties, etc., well, you are free to do so.

Last edited by Byerly : Yesterday at 06:06 PM.

Reply

Byerly

Old Yesterday, 06:08 PM #12

MikeyD223

Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 254

Kitty can scratch!!!!!! Raaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Why so defensive?

Can't you provide us with application numbers? You obviously have access to them. I'm too busy with my prestigious job to go data "hunting."

Old Yesterday, 06:17 PM #13

Byerly

Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 5,350

You're too snotty.

Reply

Byerly

Old Yesterday, 06:40 PM #14

MikeyD223

Junior Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 254

HAHAHAHAHAH..

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5997312)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5998623)

Please click on this thread named, "This thread was deleted by the moderator, NYCFan":

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=424094&mc=35&forum_id=1

NYCFan, I believe, has been releived of his duties as moderator by GTO, after Fan started deleting entire threads which he disagreed with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#6000403)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=421059&mc=206&forum_id=1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=415561&forum_id=2#5997586)