Shelley Batts has a post, Whites-Only Scholarship as "Reverse Affirmative Action". Shelley sayeth:
...In order to ensure that universities, and students, benefit from a diverse education, often pro-active techniques are utilized to recruit minorities.
When the race war comes all of us colored folk will be marked by our skin or our countenance as The Enemy. But, today the reality is that various People of Color have rather different interests in some areas, and that within each group there are schisms of interest due to class (e.g., what does the Indian doctor have to do with the Indian cabbie? Not very much let me tell you).
Here's a list of the 2007 Rhodes' Scholars:
Maya Shankar, Amia P. Srinivasan, Parvinder Thiara, Shaan-Chirag C. Gandhi, Elise Wang, Leana S. Wen, Charles R. Salmen (Arab Jewish), Joshua Billings, Christian C. Sahner, Jacob E. Lemieux, Kevin Shenderov, Sean Genis, Whitney Haring-Smith, Casey N. Cep, Maria Repnikova, Daniel Armanios, Zachary John, A. Manfredi, Benjamin J. Lundin, Brad M. Smith, Timothy F. Simmons, Ginger L. Turner, Michelle M. Sikes, Nicholas J. Shelly, Aaron, F. Mertz, Katie N. Lee, Avi Feller, Brian C. Johnsrud, Ryan R. Thoreson, Andrew G. Shipley, Keriann M. Backus, Genevieve Quist, Julie Veroff
I don't know if an "Arab Jewish" kid counts as a "minority" today, but that's a combination that warrants notice I think. But in any case, I bolded the minority recipients. 6 out of 32 isn't bad. In fact, 4 out of 32, or 1/8, were Indian American (brownz represent!). Using Census numbers that means Indian Americans are overrepresented by a factor of 16. In fact, last year a study came out which suggested that at elite universities:
Disregarding race in college admissions would cause sharp drops in the number of black and Hispanic students at elite institutions, according to a new study by two researchers at Princeton University.
The study, described in an article published in the June issue of Social Science Quarterly, also found that eliminating affirmative action would significantly raise the number of Asian-American students, while having little effect on white students.
Why is this? Read Dan Golden's The Price of Admission, elite universities aren't the total meritocracy you might think. "Athletic" scholarships (think rowing, not football), preferences for prep schools and reservations for the super-rich tend to benefit America's pink-cheeked old ruling caste.
...It's true that the particular pressure to limit the number of Jewish students at elite colleges has disappeared from the admissions process, but the uncomfortable reality is that it's been replaced by a system designed -- whether intentionally or not -- to limit the number of Asian students at the very same college.
Now, discrimination against Asians isn't super-severe. If it was, you'd see fewer Asian Americans in the Ivy League than you see in the country at large. In reality, you see more Asians. But the same was true of Jews back in the day -- they were both discriminated against and overrepresented. And the mechanisms of discrimination are largely the same. Legacy preferences disadvantage Asians as a group. So do preferences for athletes. So do preferences for African-Americans and Hispanics. And so do "geographical diversity" preferences. Graduates of selective public magnet schools with high concentrations of Asians (places like Stuyvesant in NYC) are discriminated against vis-a-vis graduates of expensive private schools with few Asians (places like Dalton where I went). Consequently, the grades and test scores of the average Asian American student at an elite college are significantly higher than those of the non-Asians.
And so is life. An Asian American acquaintance of mine told me, "Yes, the bar is raised for us yellow fellers [he, being Chinese], but that's OK, we're just that good. So long as the whites know who has it easy...." A month ago I was listening to NPR, and Daniel Golden was being interviewed. He noted that the admissions offices didn't know what to do with all the academically talented Asian American applicants and viewed them as an amorphous mass. So they simply ratcheted up standards to get their numbers down The host stated, "I thought they were all international students." No Ms. Young, they're Americans all right, they just work really hard despite their slanty eyes. They are that good.
Now, there are serious issues about possible transplantation of "cram school" mentality, and the genuine need for geographic, social, cultural, economic and racial diversity. But let's just be honest about what's going on here: many whites assume that their own racial elites engage in noblesse oblige and step aside so that underrepresented minorities can have their own slots in the halls of power. The white man's burden as it were. No, not at all, the positions and privileges of the high and mighty remain, rather, it is the grasping and avaricious rise of the overachieving arriviste caste of color which is being marginalized in the name of social justice. The peril cometh.
Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Don't worry, the asians will assimilate to the anti-intellectualist american culture soon enough. White youths used to have a cram mentality as well, it was acerbized by shayton, as he will do to others who fall ill of the sunnah.
I agree with Keil. Each generation is one more suped up Acura closer to the mediocrity of the masses.
"non-Asian minorities" screams "ad hoc hypothesis" to me
I saw two Russian names on the list and there's a reasonable chance that they were from immigrant families similiar to most South Asian (and many East Asian) families.
Immigrants are overrepresented partly because immigrants as a group tend to be enterprising, and partly because immigrants see the contrast with the lack of opportunity back hime, but especially because in many countries very sharp people see their careers dead-ended, and devote their own lives to making careers possible for their children. One thing I've become convinced of is that the biggest selection factor in very high achievement is the parents' committment to their children's education as opposed to everything else (including the parents own lives, but also including the children's fun and so on).
"Well-roundedness" is a code word keeping Asians out. Asian parents have figured this out too, of course, and it may be a good thing to have these parents encouraging their kids to get involved in other activities. Theoretically sports shouldn't be a selector at all, but sports success can be a markers for determination, discipline, and competitiveness, and there's no college, not even MIT, which is entirely devoted to he production of scientists and PhDs. If I were admitting people I'd especially look at athletes who succeeded with median body types (not sprinters, basketball centers, or down linemen.)
Katie N. Lee is also Chinese. There are three Scandinavian names on the list, with Lundin a possible.
many whites assume that their own racial elites engage in noblesse oblige and step aside so that underrepresented minorities can have their own slots in the halls of power.
It is important to remember that this is not the entirety of the situation:
Whites are not a monolithic group, and the whites who represent the majority of the country are even more underrepresented on population/merit terms than Asians are.
Immigrants are overrepresented partly because
Skilled immigrants are highly unrepresentative samples of their homelands.
One thing I've become convinced of is that the biggest selection factor in very high achievement is the parents' committment to their children's education as opposed to everything else (including the parents own lives, but also including the children's fun and so on).
The biggest selection factor in very high achievement is the DNA that the parents pass on to their children, which predisposes them (or not) towards intelligence and hard work. That's the upstream variable.
the asians will assimilate to the anti-intellectualist american culture soon enough.
Except it isn't "culture", it's genetics. Asians raised in white homes with all white friends get those same high Asian grades.
Immigrants are overrepresented partly because. . .
Immigrants are not a monolithic category. Some are skilled/successful and some are not. There is little success remainder when you account for test scores (i.e. IQ).
One thing I've become convinced of is that the biggest selection factor in very high achievement is the parents' committment to their children's education as opposed to everything else
The evidence does not support this theory. It is simply genetic IQ (and a few lesser personality traits). I know most people don't like that explanation but it's true.
I just want to know, what the fuck is an "Asian"? I mean, sure we're using broad terms such as "white" and "hispanic" but do we really have to pc out words like "indian" and "oriental"? Aren't those words a whole hell of a lot more visually, scientifically and culturaly accurate (though still broad and often INNaccurate) than "asian"?
Methinks the designation "Asian" is a riduculous one and furthermore that the word "Oriental" should be considered racist. Nuts!