OH NO, you didn't say that.
LOL

When I was at Cal my Aunt and Uncle told me that med schools (like U of Penn Med school where he went) had quotas on Jewish students. They (and I) thought that was very wrong.
Maybe that's what we should do - have an exact quota for each religion and race. Sure would serve the jackasses who think redistribution is the way to go - their kids would probably soak up all their money going to private schools.

One would expect no less from the Chronicle. Social engineering is the last refuge of a lost cause. Are we trying to have a University system that is the crown jewel of our public educational system, educating the best and brightest of our students, or are we trying to make the student body population just look good, and who gets to define what looks good? And what part of using racial preferences to grant admission to anything is not blatantly unconstitutional?

Well... (wading into the fray with a gasoline can).....

It would be interesting to see Cal and UCLA's numbers EXCLUDING foreign students. Simply put, European higher ed MUCH better than Chinese and SW Asian Sub continent higher ed and with the growing middle/upper middle class in China and India it would make complete sense why a higher percentage of foreign students are from Asia rather than, for example, would be Oxford/Cambridge students. As you can see, the distribution is really skewed toward Asian countries.

Here are the stats from 2013
http://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/student-stats-fall13.pdf


If we backed out from the statistics those kids, then it would be interesting to see if "whitey" really isn't studying that much.

NYCGOBEARS;842292790 said:

---

No. She was a little blonde girl. That's what really pissed mom off. She couldn't believe that she was better at math than me. Tried to hit that later but was severely rebuffed. Damn, she grew up to be pretty hot. Went to fUCLA IIRC.

---

Was this her? Macall Manor? She is the hottest (and most flexible) blonde girl at UCLA, other than adult video superstar Tasha Reign, aka Rachel Swimmer:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17dlLjzDuUE"][U]Video of Flexible Macall Manor doing modern dance routine to "Hometown"[/U][/URL]














Sorry. This was just a transparent excuse to post photos of Macall Manor, hottest UCLA cheerleader ever.

Macall Manor: "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."

SanseiBear;842292929 said:

---

Slider643, correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember several Asian regents opposing [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Connerly"][U][COLOR="Navy"]Ward Connerly's [/COLOR][/U][/URL]views on affirmative action.

---

According to this [URL="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0830/text.html"][COLOR="Navy"]link[/COLOR][/URL], both Asian-American regents (Stephen Nakashima and David S. Lee) at that time voted to end affirmative action.

bearister;842293056 said:

---

Macall Manor: "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful."

---

I think you meant, "Don't hate me because I'm good at math and once kicked NYCGOBEARS's math ass"

82gradDLSdad;842293166 said:

---

I think you meant, "Don't hate me because I'm good at math and once kicked NYCGOBEARS's math ass"

---

That's hot.

When we stop competing on an equal footing, everyone loses. Quotas are just for those who do not want to compete, and in the end, they lose.

manus;842293210 said:

---

When we stop competing on an equal footing, everyone loses. Quotas are just for those who do not want to compete, and in the end, they lose.

---

And quotas make those served by them never sure if they were "good enough". If you were smart enough to think that way, must have been a real problem.

OdontoBear66;842293398 said:

---

And quotas make those served by them never sure if they were "good enough". If you were smart enough to think that way, must have been a real problem.

---

Quota is to mandate that different people play by different rules.

I bet that if you take the international students out, the population of the white students at Cal would be approximately the population of the white students in the state, and that the increase in Asian students is really taking the place of the other minority students.

Also, there are some international students who really are categorized as US students, as they come here for high school ( there are 5 kids from China housed on my street who are going to Bishop O'Dowd whose parents are sending them in hopes of getting an easier application to Cal / UCLA or some other decent US college). Hard to tease those out of the applications as well.

manus;842293210 said:

---

When we stop competing on an equal footing, everyone loses. Quotas are just for those who do not want to compete, and in the end, they lose.

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

Cal88;842293453 said:

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

---

So true and also so unfortunate. But then many believe it would be nice for some of the culturally disadvantaged students and parents of same had an opportunity to end that cycle with a ticket to a better school in as close by area as possible. But who is blocking that---the teacher's union who for their reasons fight it. At least it would be a start and a "hope".

Cal88;842293453 said:

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

---

IMO, it's not so much the competition that is flawed as much as it is the culture that is flawed. Yet affirmative action seeks to reward the culture that doesn't value education and penalize the culture that does (over)value education with quotas.

Cal88;842293453 said:

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

---

So the social engineers (who are no engineer at all) say.
That's putting a lipstick on the pig. It doesn't fix the underlying problem at all. The underlying problem is that some cultures do not value education, and making things seem better on college campuses will never fix that problem.

slider643;842293503 said:

---

IMO, it's not so much the competition that is flawed as much as it is the culture that is flawed. Yet affirmative action seeks to reward the culture that doesn't value education and penalize the culture that does (over)value education with quotas.

---

I remember the whole episode of BAMN (Back affirmative action by any means necessary) while I was a student there.

The group was hugely disruptive (stopped my roommate's class twice on the same week), and in general full of angry students and others (a bunch of onn students) just crashing into campus and administrative courses.

The intent of affirmative action was justified, but now becomes a divisive rule. Someone will get screwed.

ultramantaro;842293539 said:

---

I remember the whole episode of BAMN (Back affirmative action by any means necessary) while I was a student there.

The group was hugely disruptive (stopped my roommate's class twice on the same week), and in general full of angry students and others (a bunch of onn students) just crashing into campus and administrative courses.

The intent of affirmative action was justified, but now becomes a divisive rule. Someone will get screwed.

---

The intent of affirmative action is to put lipstick on a pig, to make some college campuses look more diverse.
College admission cannot change the fact that there are underrepresented ethnic groups in the pool of college-bound high school graduates, and the problem for that has started all the way back in elementary schools.

Oops!

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2014/03/17/bill-to-restore-racial-preferences-in-university-admissions-is-shelved/

All the talk here has been interesting, as I expected when I kicked the hornet's nest.

I'll toss out a case study (very abbreviated) at the high school level.

In the post WWII, baby-boom expansion of the inner East Bay, El Cerrito High School was one of the top high schools in the country, considered by many to be superior to the then world famous Berkeley High School. ECHS physics students built the fourth fully functional educational cyclotron in the country. Not merely at a high school, any level of school. The rapid post war expansion of UC led to the development of the formerly rural western Contra Costa County cities of Kensington and El Cerrito. The previously rather average Richmond Unified School District was soon controlled by five board members connected to UC, residing in El Cerrito and Kensington.

The anti integration revolt of the mid sixties shortly led to an extremely conservative takeover of the district. The cities of San Pablo and Pinole, and to a lesser extent Richmond, had the highest voter support in the entire state of the George Wallace candidacy in the 1968 election. The quick changes in district governance, along with the white-flight aided emigration to Walnut Creek and it's surrounding cities, contributed to the long, slow decline of El Cerrito High School student outcomes.

Fast forward to the 21st century. The small Albany School District, which decades earlier had served the children of mostly blue collar workers for UC and local industry, had steadily improved as more professionals moved into town and the UC grad student housing took over and expanded the old war effort apartments.

By about 2000, Albany High was about a 9-5 level school. El Cerrito High was about a 5-5 level. This just means that Albany was top 10 percentile, El Cerrito at about middle of the pack. The schools have comparable size enrollement.

For decades, some 100 or so kids from El Cerrito attended Albany schools by falsifying residency. After a big brouhaha, the Albany School District decided to throw open the doors to outside students of a certain type, in order to maximize AP class enrollment and secure the state provided daily attendance money. By controlling the "academic quality" of the new students, Albany chose accept lower average per student funding, while reserving the ability to purge those who did not measure up.

About 500 El Cerrito residents now openly attend Albany schools, more still have kept their older falsified residency to attend.

Albany High is now about a 9-9 school, while El Cerrito High is about a 2-2. To fill the classrooms, the newly named West Contra Costa School District threw open the door to all comers. The student body now consists of more than half Richmond residents, a quarter from many other cities, including Vallejo, Fairfield, Pinole, San Pablo, and Oakland, and about one quarter from El Cerrito.

What we now have are two modern high schools, only three blocks apart, which serve vastly different student bodies. Almost all Albany graduates go to four year schools, about a quarter of ECHS grads go directly to four years.

Cal recruits way more student-athletes from El Cerrito High than Albany.

It's business.

Cal88;842293453 said:

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

---

And what do you think about the situations where an Asian or White kid from the inner city with a single mother loses out to the culturally advantaged black and hispanic student who has a family that makes getting into college a top prioriity?

If you think it's a matter of probability or frequency of this situation occurring what degree of this is acceptable? How likely should these scenarios be? Finally, is there inherently a reason why socioeconomic affirmative action or some other kind of compensating mechanism falls short of achieving these goals compared to blanket race based affirmative action?

I always wondered why nobody ever challenges the NFL or NBA about not having enough Asian or Hispanic players. It seems they're being left out of that high paying job market.

Bobodeluxe;842293703 said:

---

Oops!

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2014/03/17/bill-to-restore-racial-preferences-in-university-admissions-is-shelved/

All the talk here has been interesting, as I expected when I kicked the hornet's nest.

I'll toss out a case study (very abbreviated) at the high school level.

In the post WWII, baby-boom expansion of the inner East Bay, El Cerrito High School was one of the top high schools in the country, considered by many to be superior to the then world famous Berkeley High School. ECHS physics students built the fourth fully functional educational cyclotron in the country. Not merely at a high school, any level of school. The rapid post war expansion of UC led to the development of the formerly rural western Contra Costa County cities of Kensington and El Cerrito. The previously rather average Richmond Unified School District was soon controlled by five board members connected to UC, residing in El Cerrito and Kensington.

The anti integration revolt of the mid sixties shortly led to an extremely conservative takeover of the district. The cities of San Pablo and Pinole, and to a lesser extent Richmond, had the highest voter support in the entire state of the George Wallace candidacy in the 1968 election. The quick changes in district governance, along with the white-flight aided emigration to Walnut Creek and it's surrounding cities, contributed to the long, slow decline of El Cerrito High School student outcomes.

Fast forward to the 21st century. The small Albany School District, which decades earlier had served the children of mostly blue collar workers for UC and local industry, had steadily improved as more professionals moved into town and the UC grad student housing took over and expanded the old war effort apartments.

By about 2000, Albany High was about a 9-5 level school. El Cerrito High was about a 5-5 level. This just means that Albany was top 10 percentile, El Cerrito at about middle of the pack. The schools have comparable size enrollement.

For decades, some 100 or so kids from El Cerrito attended Albany schools by falsifying residency. After a big brouhaha, the Albany School District decided to throw open the doors to outside students of a certain type, in order to maximize AP class enrollment and secure the state provided daily attendance money. By controlling the "academic quality" of the new students, Albany chose accept lower average per student funding, while reserving the ability to purge those who did not measure up.

About 500 El Cerrito residents now openly attend Albany schools, more still have kept their older falsified residency to attend.

Albany High is now about a 9-9 school, while El Cerrito High is about a 2-2. To fill the classrooms, the newly named West Contra Costa School District threw open the door to all comers. The student body now consists of more than half Richmond residents, a quarter from many other cities, including Vallejo, Fairfield, Pinole, San Pablo, and Oakland, and about one quarter from El Cerrito.

What we now have are two modern high schools, only three blocks apart, which serve vastly different student bodies. Almost all Albany graduates go to four year schools, about a quarter of ECHS grads go directly to four years.

Cal recruits way more student-athletes from El Cerrito High than Albany.

It's business.

---

I don't understand.

What does this have to do with Macall Manor?

Cal88;842293453 said:

---

The main point of affirmative action is the recognition that this competition is deeply flawed to start with, because someone from the inner city with a single mother is not going to have the same tools to compete as a culturally advantaged student whose family has made getting into college its top priority.

---

Yes, that kid "from the inner city with a single mother" may have a harder road to hoe, but that is where "competition" is his best guide to success, if he/she so chooses (=free will) that path. If the "single parent syndrome" has created an "obstacle," it should be just one more "hurdle" in one's path to better oneself.

For a stellar example of one not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, just look what Jorge "I don't need easy. I need possible" Gutierrez has done along his journey.

Update - SCA5 was declined in the Assembly as a result of many Asian American members of the State Legislature changing their minds on Affirmative action. My thinking is with the huge negative push by the Rich Chinese donors, they had to reconsider their stance.

Either way, SCA5 was defeated.

My thinking has always been this - sure, affirmative action sounds like a great idea (I mean, who wouldn't want an equal playing field?). The problem is it would never happen because it opens up the door to huge abuses. Simply put, affirmative action is a double edge sword that essentially assumes some minorities had it worse than others when it reality - that notion is racist in itself. Pitting minority racial experiences against each other solves nothing. I don't deny there are large socioeconomic differences between groups. But to say "Blacks suffered more racism than Asians or Latinos" is wrong and racist in itself. They can't be judged amongst each other because they are different.

Cal Panda Bear;842293881 said:

---

Update - SCA5 was declined in the Assembly as a result of many Asian American members of the State Legislature changing their minds on Affirmative action. My thinking is with the huge negative push by the Rich Chinese donors, they had to reconsider their stance.

Either way, SCA5 was defeated.

My thinking has always been this - sure, affirmative action sounds like a great idea (I mean, who wouldn't want an equal playing field?). The problem is it would never happen because it opens up the door to huge abuses. Simply put, affirmative action is a double edge sword that essentially assumes some minorities had it worse than others when it reality - that notion is racist in itself. Pitting minority racial experiences against each other solves nothing. I don't deny there are large socioeconomic differences between groups. But to say "Blacks suffered more racism than Asians or Latinos" is wrong and racist in itself. They can't be judged amongst each other because they are different.

---

I think the problem is affirmative action is always couched in terms of race. I believe that there should be affirmative action by class. Poor Asians like the Hmong; blacks, Mexicans, and whites who live in poorer neighborhoods with poorer schools without the benefits of SAT tutors, internships, etc. but who excel within their peer group should receive additional consideration. The state and country has a vested interest in creating more college graduates from this group.

Cal Panda Bear;842293881 said:

---

Update - SCA5 was declined in the Assembly as a result of many Asian American members of the State Legislature changing their minds on Affirmative action. My thinking is with the huge negative push by the Rich Chinese donors, they had to reconsider their stance.

Either way, SCA5 was defeated.

My thinking has always been this - sure, affirmative action sounds like a great idea (I mean, who wouldn't want an equal playing field?). The problem is it would never happen because it opens up the door to huge abuses. Simply put, affirmative action is a double edge sword that essentially assumes some minorities had it worse than others when it reality - that notion is racist in itself. Pitting minority racial experiences against each other solves nothing. I don't deny there are large socioeconomic differences between groups. But to say "Blacks suffered more racism than Asians or Latinos" is wrong and racist in itself. They can't be judged amongst each other because they are different.

---

The problem with affirmative action is that it is not a solution to the problem.

It's like a game between two basketball teams, one consists of healthy players and the other consists of malnourished players. In the end, the healthy team beats the malnourished team by 15 points, but the judge says, "well the malnourished team lost 20 points due to early childhood nutrition, so we're going to add 20 points to their score and have them advance."

It does not solve the problem. The problem of malnourishment can only be dealt when they were children. Giving them a free ticket later on 1) does not solve the underlying problem in any way or form, and 2) really **** off the other team who won fair and square.

GB54;842293882 said:

---

I think the problem is affirmative action is always couched in terms of race. I believe that there should be affirmative action by class. Poor Asians like the Hmong; blacks, Mexicans, and whites who live in poorer neighborhoods with poorer schools without the benefits of SAT tutors, internships, etc. but who excel within their peer group should receive additional consideration. The state and country has a vested interest in creating more college graduates from this group.

---

Basically this. At one time racially-based Affirmative Action was probably a good idea. At this point I think continuing to have AA based entirely on race will just have diminishing returns while not really addressing the larger problem. That's not to say that racism doesn't exist anymore, but when it comes to things like school admissions, graduating college, etc., economics is by far the largest barrier. Overall grades and test scores seem to correlate a lot more with class than they do with race.

It would be far more useful to have Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic class. That can be a bit hard to define, but a good place to start would be to look at how much money your parents make. And the thing is that doing so would probably still result in something like what race-based AA is trying to accomplish, which is a racially diverse student body . . . mostly because of the sad fact that lower economic classes still contain a very high percentage of black and Hispanic kids. But by identifying class we would do a better job of actually helping the students that AA is meant to help.

On a practical basis, how many universities are truly affected by AA? Doesn't apply to private schools who magically have student bodies that closely mirror racial demographics of the nation as a whole. Forbes ranks 650 public and private universities and private liberal arts schools. If somebody's turned down at University of Arkansas, Little Rock they're hosed, but if somebody's turned down at Cal, UVa, or Michigan, there are still hundreds of viable options left.

The Obama girls don't deserve any help in admissions given that they may be third generation Ivy Leaguers and I doubt they apply to UVa, William & Mary, or University of Illinois. Diversity's a worthy goal, but not if excellence is compromised.

BearDevil;842293910 said:

---

The Obama girls don't deserve any help in admissions given that they may be third generation Ivy Leaguers and I doubt they apply to UVa, William & Mary, or University of Illinois. Diversity's a worthy goal, but not if excellence is compromised.

---

Right, precisely why it would be more useful to tie Affirmative Action to socioeconomic class rather than race.

I entirely agree that a socialeconomic form of affirmative action is way better than a racial affirmative action. Just wanted to say that in case you guys thought I was saying otherwise.

I think Obama put it best when he said his girls should not be given an advantage because theyre Black.

Cal Panda Bear;842294134 said:

---

I entirely agree that a socialeconomic form of affirmative action is way better than a racial affirmative action. Just wanted to say that in case you guys thought I was saying otherwise.

I think Obama put it best when he said his girls should not be given an advantage because theyre Black.

---

Instead they will be given an advantage because they are rich and politically connected. Much better.

On an unrelated note, some schools do try to focus on socioecomics. The law school I attended in the 1990s had a program where anyone with a disadvantaged background - regardless of race - could seek special admittance (e.g., a white kid who grew up in poverty). The problem was that if you were black, native American, or another underrepresented minority (i.e., not Asian), you were "presumed" to be disadvantaged. They were on the right track . . .

BearGoggles;842294177 said:

---

Instead they will be given an advantage because they are rich and politically connected. Much better.

On an unrelated note, some schools do try to focus on socioecomics. The law school I attended in the 1990s had a program where anyone with a disadvantaged background - regardless of race - could seek special admittance (e.g., a white kid who grew up in poverty). The problem was that if you were black, native American, or another underrepresented minority (i.e., not Asian), you were "presumed" to be disadvantaged. They were on the right track . . .

---

So the Asians got screwed again. Anytime there are concessions made in admissions, some group gets the wrong end of the stick. Asians always seem to be that group.

slider643;842294212 said:

---

So the Asians got screwed again. Anytime there are concessions made in admissions, some group gets the wrong end of the stick. Asians always seem to be that group.

---

Not always the case.
The Cal Alumni Assn has a TAP scholarship which takes into account socioeconomic issues in granting its scholarships.

In the years that my wife and I have been supporting TAP scholars there have been many scholarships to Blacks and Latinos. But there have also been many scholarships to individuals who were otherwise classified as "white" who had grown up poor and underprivileged and to those classified as "Asian". Most of whom were children of Vietnamese, Cambodian or Philipino immigrants. And there were also a number to Chinese and Japanese who were raised in families with only one parent who lived below the poverty line.

So no the Asians don't always get the short end of the stick.

68great;842294273 said:

---

Not always the case.
The Cal Alumni Assn has a TAP scholarship which takes into account socioeconomic issues in granting its scholarships.

In the years that my wife and I have been supporting TAP scholars there have been many scholarships to Blacks and Latinos. But there have also been many scholarships to individuals who were otherwise classified as "white" who had grown up poor and underprivileged and to those classified as "Asian". Most of whom were children of Vietnamese, Cambodian or Philipino immigrants. And there were also a number to Chinese and Japanese who were raised in families with only one parent who lived below the poverty line.

So no the Asians don't always get the short end of the stick.

---

Thanks for the one instance which shows that Asians only mostly get the short end of the stick.