Hacker News Reader

Comment by yesthereis | Hacker News Reader

This is a symptom of quota system that many schools and companies use to achieve diversity. Unfortunately, as Asian American, I have experienced it firsthand. Asian Americans are some of highest achieving minority, but due to their smaller number there is not enough quotas allocated to them.

Many of my friends could not get into their first choice colleges or didn't get scholarships even with perfect grades, extracurricular activities, etc but some of my friends from other larger minority groups got full scholarships even with average GPAs. They laughed at us for working so hard, called us geeks, and then got scholarships because of only ethnicity.

I know this is controversial topic, hence, throwaway account. But this is open secret in Asian communities. Hopefully, this lawsuit will change this ridiculous discriminatory quota system.

View on HN

> then got scholarships because of only ethnicity.

Are you absolutely certain of that? How did you know?

I am not American. But don't you guys have that "affirmative action" thing, especially for the african american demographic?

Most top tier universities don't consider asian-americans as under-represented minorities and even hold higher standards via unwritten caps for the number of AAs admitted.

Generally, under affirmative action programmes and the like, nobody gets anything “just because of their ethnicity”. Rather, they may be given slightly reduced entry requirements, for example, to compensate for their background potentially disadvantaging them.

1.0 lower on GPA (e.g. 2.5 vs 3.5) is "slightly reduced entry requirements"?

http://web.archive.org/web/20080423221308/http://www.umich.e...

Surely college admissions procedures have changed significantly in the intervening 17 years, right? We're talking about the advent and removal of the 2400 point SAT, the rise of digital applications, and the rise of SAT subject tests, among other changes.

Furthermore, this specific point system in question was ruled unconstitutional and is no longer in use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

It's possible that the same organizations which were found directly discriminating on race, and desperately resist any transparency (both before and after), have secretly reformed.

It's also possible that admissions numbers didn't change a lot because "holistic" admissions discovered previously unmeasurable mitigating factors for blacks having low SAT/grades/etc.

And in yet another major coincidence, these systems also discovered that Asians are inferior in similarly unquantifiable ways, resulting in Asians who are admitted having SAT scores 450 pts higher than blacks and 140 pts higher than whites.

I don't find this particularly likely, however. Do you?

I don't think it's really a secret, the "unmeasurable mitigating factors" are society-wide discrimination issues that make life in general harder for black people. You don't have to pretend there's a secret conspiracy, affirmative action colleges are openly trying to correct for the effects of structural racism that they have no control over. This is certainly a debatable idea, but you don't need to act like it's something colleges are trying to cover up.

> You don't have to pretend there's a secret conspiracy, affirmative action colleges are openly trying to correct for the effects of structural racism that they have no control over.

This is an interesting case. In fact, you do have to admit there's a secret conspiracy, for the simple reason that "correcting for the effects of structural racism" is illegal for public colleges, and they therefore never formally admit to that justification. You're correct, though, that that is how they are generally perceived by the public and how their executives generally think about what they're doing, as far as we can tell. I think that's a pretty good match to the concept of "conspiracy".

> "correcting for the effects of structural racism" is illegal for public colleges

No, its not.

Certain mechanisms might be (whether or not they have that purpose), but pursuing that purpose is not.

1. You have a good point that "certain mechanisms" are relevant; I spoke too sloppily. Stating the goal without taking any action pursuant to the goal is, as far as I know, fine.

2. You are incorrect on the law to say "whether or not they have that purpose"; race discrimination in admissions is legal (for public schools) when performed for an academic purpose such as "to increase classroom diversity", and illegal when performed to "correct for the effects of structural racism". This is the root cause of the talismanic promotion of "diversity" today. The school's stated purpose is relevant to whether their action is legal or illegal. (If you think this is a travesty, I couldn't agree more. It's still the law.)

2b. Interestingly, some methods of race discrimination (speaking generally, the objective ones) have been found to be illegal regardless of stated purpose. That's a separate issue.

It is not illegal in most of the country: https://tcf.org/content/commentary/what-can-we-learn-from-st...

And minority enrollment tends to decline in states where affirmative action is banned, so I don't think there are any conspiracies involved: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative...

It is illegal in the entire country. That is the general idea of the Supreme Court; it has national scope.

Specifically, the motivation "correct the effects of structural racism" is illegal when a public school is engaging in affirmative action. Affirmative action is generally legal, as long as you have a legal motive.

It turns out, though, that it's really easy for people to lie about their motives.

What supreme court decision are you talking about? You might be right, but the only decisions I could find eliminated quota systems, and required schools to take more than just race into account. I would be interested to see the case you're talking about.

One can't be 100% certain of anything. However, between 2/3 and 5/6 of black students at top colleges probably would have been rejected under a meritocratic admission system.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11904256

Similarly, it's established that Asians tend to meet a much higher SAT cutoff than blacks and whites.

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-...

It's pretty safe to say that most blacks at Harvard don't deserve to be there and it probably should be an Asian in their place. You just can't say which specific blacks and Asians it should be.

I don't think you can jump straight from "some people benefit from affirmative action" to "they don't deserve to be there". Obviously supporters of affirmative action do think they deserve to be there, despite their lower test scores, and it's worth at least considering that point of view.

It's the politics of new england. Only once that very same ethnicity is functionally dealt with, will anything change, they prefer their preferred minorities to us.

Hiring asians count towards the quota i believe.

by the way, it's not dutch, or germans that are the problem, it's just anglo-saxons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com