个人资料
雅美之途 (热门博主)
  • 博客访问:
正文

控诉美国名校歧视需要先做好功课

(2016-12-22 08:55:14) 下一个

美国亚裔教育联盟(AACE)主席赵宇空在不太懂美国名牌大学的录取原则时,就指控名校歧视,并且相当不妥地用自己儿子做为例证。他的下文在文学城曾经引来不少留言,我还曾写过一篇文章回应他们申诉耶鲁歧视的事情。我曾经是相当反对平权法案的人士,当时抗议加州SCA5时文学城专栏就用过我的文章,但是这次大选让我看到川粉们极端的自私自利行为,使我的立场有些松动,虽然仍然反对美国平权对亚裔的歧视。然而,我不可想像毫无社会关怀心的人士的后代大量入读哈佛耶鲁后,美国是否会变成像中国当今那样的社会达尔文主义横行的社会,更是觉得美国应该适当照顾那些愿意服务美国非洲裔聚集的内城的年轻人读医学院。

赵宇空文章:

赵宇空:我为什么鼓励孩子申诉藤校?

http://www.wenxuecity.com/blog/201610/63216/1411398.html

文学城网友(我和其他两位)留言:

雅美之途 发表评论于
Second, it's not a good idea to expose your son in such a public forum.

雅美之途 发表评论于 2016-10-11 20:23:52:

Correction: My sympathy to your kid's application outcome. Although it's quite tough for all Chinese American students, National Merit Finalist is not such a big deal as you stated in your article. Unfortunately he needs much more to be competitive for top schools.

Derrick_Liu 发表评论于 2016-10-12 07:14:04

1)你儿子的学校,甚至你儿子的学区,今年有被这两所藤校录取的吗?2)你能指出哪位被该两所藤校录取的学生,因为歧视的原因取代了你儿子“本来应该被录取的位置“?

3)同样获得国家优秀学生奖学金其它七千个学生,是否都被排名前二十的学校录取?

4)你们学区另外100 名被前二十学校录取的同学中亚裔被歧视了吗?

5)有任何一个有权威的人士认证:你儿子符合这两所藤校的录取标准吗?

答案:

1)你儿子的学区没有人被这两所学校录取。所谓鸡头在差区更容易上藤的秘诀,没有成功。你儿子没有因此入藤校,你儿子的印度裔同学也没占到便宜。况且印度同学居然没有同时报冤,去教育部请愿,看样子人家没觉得被歧视啊?

2)你无法列出任何学生取代你儿子的证据。

3)不是。其中2500 个奖是学校发的,几乎都不是前二十的学校。两所藤校也不发。

4)?

5)没有。This is a lottery. 如果你不能证明儿子够格,如何能证明藤校歧视你儿子?Blum 先生的律师不会接你儿子的案子。

你这个案子的证据也太弱了。等着被回绝吧。中国科技大学培养出来的学生,不能在上述五个问题都没搞清楚或者是减分答案的情况下,就拉大旗做虎皮吧?Cal 今年录取了数千亚裔。Cal 如果没有录取你儿子,是不是和两个藤校同罪呀?证明歧视,最关键的一条是被告(即录取官)蓄意(intentionally)歧视原告(你儿子),如果是由法庭判决的话。你不可能有这两所藤校录取官蓄意歧视你儿子的证据。至于你处处强调的前二十学校都没录取一证据,其实说明二藤校不录取是情有可原的。 Cal都不录,哥大能录吗?逻辑啊!

我这是实话实说。我知道的例子,一个华裔学生,PSAT 考砸了,NMSF 的资格都没拿到。但以前参加数学竞赛的成绩不错,曾经数次到 MIT 参加数学比赛,虽然 SAT 成绩也没到 2300,一样 EA MIT 成功;后 RD P 成功。一个连 NMSF 资格都没有的申请人被 MIT 录取,能否证明 MIT 歧视像你儿子这种 NMS 获得者?不能。其一,PSAT 偶然性很高;其二,即使是 NMS 奖金获得者,不过是两次标准考试没出漏子而已,并不是什么一定能被前二十学校录取的板上定钉子的护身符。

另一个是八年级才来美国的华裔学生,英文程度不佳,但活动能力超群。即使 SAT 仅仅 2120,GPA 3.8,仍然 EA Duke 成功,让我们为他骄傲。如果仅看 SAT 和 GPA,这位同学可能不如你儿子的成绩亮眼(假设你儿子 SAT 高于 2120),他被录取,你儿子没有被录取,能说明 Duke 歧视亚裔吗?不能。

即使是NMS奖,你所谓七千人得主都是在当年录取结果分晓之后才确定的。你居然把这个奖作为被藤校歧视的证据,属于自欺欺人。诚实点儿,仅列一个NMSF并不丢人。

如果你儿子申请了前二十名大学中的八所以上,没有一个大学伸出橄榄枝,绝大多数的可能是他本身条件不够格,而不是歧视。

再者,瓜田李下,你身为主席,即使你儿子被歧视,为避嫌,也应该 recuse yourself from his case. This would have showed your professionalism. It would be far-fetched that your son is the only or most qualified candidate for this year's complaint. Your judgment is presumably obscured by your personal interest in this case.

Be a graceful loser. That is not the end of the world.

czhz 发表评论于 2016-10-12 09:44:19:

我非常认真地把文章读了2-3遍,有几点想法:

1)如果只是作为一般性的呼吁,笼统点没有问题。但要起诉两所特定的学校,你必须给出针对这两所学校的具体事例和证据,不能笼统。呼吁大人不能欺负小孩没错,但不能仅凭这么个理念就指责你邻居家大人欺负你儿子。

2)同样文章没有给出这两所学校歧视令郎的具体例证。比如,这两所学校是否录取了某个成绩等各方面不如令郎的学生,如果有,是什么族裔的?

3)你在National Merit上花费了大量的笔墨,将之作为主要证据。National Merit翻译成中文很好听“国家优秀学生奖学金”,但实际上仅仅是一家公司或基金会,主要依据是一次PSAT考试。假如我是大学,我为什么要让另一家机构来替我作决定,我为何要以一次PSAT的成绩为录取依据?

4)关键部分语焉不详。比如“他在其高中的科学奥林匹克、辩论队以及科学知识竞赛等学生组织中担任主席或队长等职务。” 他担任所有这些团体的主席,队长,还是部分?这些团体取得了什么样的成绩,他的贡献是什么?要知道,参加,甚至组建一个团体并不说明问题。如果他能证明在学生社团建设方面达到你的水平,或者一半的水平,那倒是很了不起的领导才能。还有,你说“他的写作十分优秀,常常在校报写稿。” 这只说明经常投稿,并不说明写作优秀。

5)有趣的是,你是选择性语焉不详,有些部分很具体,比如“他作为主要骨干参与的FTC机器人团队曾两次打入了世界级竞赛。” 一句话,把他的role (主要骨干),项目名称(FTC机器人),取得成绩(两次打入了世界级竞赛),交待得清清楚楚。

6)听说你在中国出版了一本关于申请美国名校的书,特别强调美国名校招生不以分数为唯一根据,重视课外活动,并教人如何包装课外活动。说实话,我对此是很鄙视的,因为这类书,以及新东方之类的机构,严重干扰了正常的招生过程。说白了,是在指导人如何作弊:呈现一个虚假的自己,试图fool招生官。这也让我疑惑,令郎的课外活动是他本人的兴趣,还是在你指导下,制造出来的?特别是,他怎么会担任如此多社团的主席/队长,覆盖面又如此之广,写作,辩论,科学竞赛?

7)你起诉的哈佛,哥大,亚裔已经达到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的话,以后谁为西裔和黑裔社区服务?中国为了培养民族干部,设立了专门的民族学院,普通大学也有民族班,难道美国就不需要培养特定的民族工作人员?

我的回应博文:

申诉耶鲁歧视是选错了学校和证人

http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/61002/201606/1000714.html

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (36)
评论
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 回复 'czhz' 的评论 :

You said:

"这本来也不deserve my response, 之前就说了 : 废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态,这是常规逻辑。好了,这真的是最后一次,你尽可以另找课堂教人如何make argument.


------------


You seem to have a habit of not responding to questions and not reading questions before responding even if you do respond. You have a problem thinking and speaking logically.

To make it clear, I quote my original question below:

"Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself."

If you do not understand what the second law of thermodynamics is, what I am saying is simply that nothing can turn time back and nothing can be reverted to the original state, much less using societal laws. So 废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态 is an impossibility. You will have to specify what exactly what you mean by "reverting back to prior state".
Nba20169 回复 悄悄话 回复 'nightrider' 的评论 :
You are so funny to ask the general people to give you a so called quote. When 我看到川粉们极端的自私自利行为 to take an anti-AA action in support Trump, I totally agree with AA. The reason is in the long-run, Asian American or Chinese American can not have the ability and passion to work in some area, such as South of Chicago, where 芝加哥“血腥”圣诞周末 12人被枪杀40多人伤. Can you let me know, you will let your son or daughter, after graduate from Ivy schools, to work in the “血腥”圣诞周末芝加哥 area? Can she or he have the ability to be a leader of Africa America? If your answer is yes, I will be in the team of anti-AA. If not, you better to keep quiet. I support AA just I know 以夷制夷 is a good way to lead Africa American, and to get better and more good Africa America leaders is to have them well educated. That is only way to want my and all Chinese American next generation to live in a peaceful and safe area in USA.
czhz 回复 悄悄话 your claim "慢慢回到1960s年代之前了"? Are you not going to answer to that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
这本来也不deserve my response, 之前就说了 : 废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态,这是常规逻辑。好了,这真的是最后一次,你尽可以另找课堂教人如何make argument.
czhz 回复 悄悄话 "某些人认为废除了AA,就会按分数录取". You should have stated that in the very beginning then argue against it because nowhere in the original blog this is stated nor anywhere in the comment section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not even deserve my response!
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @czhz:

It is really late now, but if you want, I can show you later an example how you could make your argument so that it is clear to your audience what argument you are trying to refute and what your refuting argument is.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 回复 'czhz' 的评论 :

It is ironic that you are questioning my capacity for logic, while not knowing how to make a simple argument and being evasive and cherry pick the questions I raised at you.

Could you please please read my last post again? I am saying the way you make an argument is wrong. I re-paste my previous post below for you convenience. Until now, we do not know the argument you are opposing is "某些人认为废除了AA,就会按分数录取". You should have stated that in the very beginning then argue against it because nowhere in the original blog this is stated nor anywhere in the comment section.

Beside this issue, what about your claim "慢慢回到1960s年代之前了"? Are you not going to answer to that?

--------------

First of all, this is not how you should make an argument. If you want to refute an argument (from whomever), you should set up the argument clearly then refute it. You have not done so, thus your readers --- I included --- have no idea what you are trying to do. All we have is your claim "废除AA,并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取,有可能慢慢回到1960s年代之前了。" Then the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else.

Second, whatever your target argument is, you can not assume it is the argument all people oppose AA hold. At least that is not my argument.

Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself.
czhz 回复 悄悄话 to nightrider: 不知你是中文理解力有问题,还是缺乏逻辑能力,反正你连"废除AA,并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取”这么简单的句子都理解不了,我就再解析一下,但这是最后一次: 1)某些人认为废除了AA,就会按分数录取; 2)我不认同; 3)因为废除AA不等于按分数录取。如果你还理解不了,我就说的再浅白些: 说“废除AA不等于按分数录取” 是不许要举证的,因为“废除AA”和“按分数录取”本身就是两件事,说他们不等同,是自然的,只有说他们等同时,才需要举证,为什么等同,所以应该是由“某些人”来举证为什么等同。
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 回复 'Nba20169' 的评论 :

I hope you understand my argument. It is not clear what your argument is. Could you please state clearly what you are proposing?

Here are some of my guesses of what you trying to say:
1) You agree with AA and the present status quo.
2) You agree with AA in principle, but consider the quota the ivy league schools allotted to American children of Asian descent too low.
3) You agree with AA in principle, but consider the quota the ivy league schools allotted to American children of Asian descent too high.
Which is it? Or maybe you have another proposition?

Please state explicitly and clearly.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 回复 'czhz' 的评论 :

First of all, this is not how you should make an argument. If you want to refute an argument (from whomever), you should set up the argument clearly then refute it. You have not done so, thus your readers --- I included --- have no idea what you are trying to do. All we have is your claim "废除AA,并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取,有可能慢慢回到1960s年代之前了。" Then the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else.

Second, whatever your target argument is, you can not assume it is the argument all people oppose AA hold. At least that is not my argument.

So what is the argument that you are trying to oppose? Please clearly state your argument.

Third, it is not clear what you mean by "废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态", what is returning to the state prior to the establishment of the said law? Is it the set of enacted laws? Is it the societal state? If it is the former, it is a vacuous truism, because it is true by definition and there is nothing to be said. If it is the latter, it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics that the macroscopic states are irreversible. So your statement per se is either vacuous or makes no sense. You will have to do better to better express yourself.
czhz 回复 悄悄话 Nba20169 2016-12-23 11:09:05 在AA的框架下, 争取华人入学率的最大化是合理的要求.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
同意。而且个人认为,亚裔以5%的人口比例,能在藤校占到20%的份额,说明藤校已经在AA的框架下,考虑了亚裔学业相对优秀的现实,即使有不合理处,也没有到歧视的程度。
czhz 回复 悄悄话 nightrider 2016-12-22 21:54:40 You deem the quota threshold of 30% ludicrous. So what quota do you think is reasonable?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
目前亚裔占长春藤20%左右,是赵主席认为要提到30%, 所以应该赵主席阐述他将20%提到30%的理由。我只是说他目前给出的说法“让我们的孩子不必这样辛苦” 很荒唐,不能成为理由。
Nba20169 回复 悄悄话 to nightrider : 在AA的框架下, 争取华人入学率的最大化是合理的要求. 只按分数是反AA华人的 "公平"标准. 尤其是以这样的标准要求私立藤校. 是没有道理的.
czhz 回复 悄悄话 @Nightrider: 废除一条法令,就是回到该法令之前的状态,这是常规逻辑。所以我说 “按常规,废除AA,就是回到AA之前,而AA之前,可不是按照你亚裔的分数录取的。” 而支持废除AA的人认为“废除AA,不是回到AA之前,而是按分数录取” 但又不给出根据,所以该举证的是他们,或者你本人。
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 To Nightrider: Wow! 其实我见了博主这个题目就进来了。不是想与谁争论,仅仅借此表达我的观点。孩子申请大学对我己经是历史。你说我讲故事?“假作真时真亦假”。这里聊天的人们英文说写都应很好,只是借此宝地表达中文的机会。如今如果不会打字中文,手指划划touching screen 去写中文,已经是常识了。无论什么年龄段的人都知道的。大家圣诞节快乐!
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @Nba20169:

You have not understood my comments. Let me explain it in more detail. czhz argues that 30% is not a reasonable number. But for AA to work, there has to be a quota between 0% and 100%. So I am asking what that reasonable quota should be. czhz's argument against 30% applies to any given number. So no quota works. Thus his argument opposes the Affirmative Action. Yet he supports AA. Therefore he is contradicting himself.

You should read my posts carefully. It is pretty clear I oppose AA. Therefore your question "你告诉我: 亚裔该吃多少? 凭啥要吃30%?" is moot. If you have an answer, you can tell me. But you have to support your claim with logic and reason, because I will question it.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @不可告人:

That is exactly what I was referring to in my very first sentence of my very first post "The truly sad thing about all these fuss with discrimination and the purported remedy Affirmative Action is that the root cause is the meddling of the state (as in nation state, or government) in the private economic affair of the citizens." Without getting into too much details, a funding should be strictly limited to, say, research in a scientific or technological field and not be used as a political blackmail for political purposes. Otherwise, it would incite endless political conflicts (what if LGBT community wants to have the college kids indoctrinated in their philosophy loathed by conservative religious groups?). You are practically inviting unresolvable conflicts that runs contrary to the very philosophy of a free society with all people of disparate beliefs living in peace and tolerance.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @Rosaline:

You can tell some good stories. But you seem to have some difficulty reading and do not seem to comprehend logical argument very well. At least you understand that we agree "你首先认可了我们生活在一个"free market " 的资本主义社会" and "Run 私立大学也是一个business." By the way, the correct phrasing is "Running 私立大学也是一个business." All your arguments support my proposition that the private enterprises have the right and freedom to make their own business decisions free of government coercion and that the Affirmative Action should be abolished. If it is not clear to you yet and behooves me to state it explicitly, let me spell it out for you: we are in agreement. Do you "明白了"? Are you too "naive" or too simple -- I am sure you are not too young?
Nba20169 回复 悄悄话 @nitrider
你要想问czhz亚裔入学比例多少合适? 我只想问你: 4个白人, 3个黑人, 2个老墨, 1个亚裔, 同时面对这块教育的蛋糕. 你告诉我: 亚裔该吃多少? 凭啥要吃30%?
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 Naive! 你看过那部Facebook 的电影吗?有一个细节,那玩crew 的双胞胎兄弟大摇大摆地走进哈佛校长办公室,毫无畏色的争论着。校长问秘书,谁按排的约见。秘书理气壮回答,有人打电话来要求的。谁打电话?哈佛杰出校友,秘书无法拒绝。注意到俩男孩走出校长办公室,使劲将办公室门甩坏了?!他们是著名富家子弟,父亲肯定是哈佛的卓越捐献者。这俩个男孩毕业后,一样,无论如何继续大量捐回哈佛。这是家庭传统文化。大学校长实际是CEO的角色,被大学董事会顾的经理人。只有中国大学校长要求什么院士,绣花枕头!我小孩告诉我,哈佛同学中许多学业平平,但是他们的父母极为优秀,大多本人素养很好。这些学习B, C的学生们仍然可能成为各行各业的领袖,因为天生机遇不同。他们仍然是大批将来的杰出捐赠者。明白了?
不可告人 回复 悄悄话 @nitrider

One thing you have to consider is that many of these schools receive federal or state funding. As these public fundings come from tax payers, you have to make sure those underrepresented races are being treated fairly at least in a financial sense. For a purely privately-funded school, they don't have to follow AA rules.
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 To Nightrider, 你首先认可了我们生活在一个"free market " 的资本主义社会。与中国大学都是国家的完全不同。Run 私立大学也是一个business. 亚裔人群在美国的社会经济地位才能决定私立大学究竟应该录取多少亚裔比例。现在美国私立大学录取犹太学生比例髙,是历史上犹太人在美国的社会、金融、科学地位逐渐提高而增加的。大学发展、保持提升排名地位需要钱,优秀校友们的捐赠是最基本的条件。没钱,business will be broken! 还谈什么长青藤?目前还真没具有说服力的事实说明这代亚裔靑年成为各界领袖人物,有意向、能力成为大学的卓越捐赠者。早年台湾来美国的有很多做的不错。例如没被某私立大学录取就上诉,父母掺和。既使任何大学录取了,我真的看不出他将来会成为一个杰出校友,回赠母校。我最近才来城里溜,父母们谈论的都是如何进好学校,找好工作…。这显然不是长青藤要的学生。美国私立大学的校董们都不傻。至于你们大谈如何比较成绩等,以说明没有歧视,我看着笑了。还是那句话,别忘了这是私立大学。
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @Rosaline:

Your comments particularly that "这些长青籘大学是那些校友们捐献的,他们当然有绝对权利决定应该录取谁?" argue against the very premise of the Affirmative Action. Repeal of AA will remove all basis of such law suits.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @czhz:

So you do not have evidence but only your prejudice for either of yours claims. As for your excuse for unable to support your own claim that "关于第2个,你问错人了,应该让那些认为“废除AA,就能按分数录取” 的人提供根据", that is simply absurd. Nobody but you made the second claim. Why should anyone else but you argue for your own proposition?

You deem the quota threshold of 30% ludicrous. So what quota do you think is reasonable? All your argument would work against any quota. So you are arguing against the quota system which the Affirmative Action is all about. Thus you are opposing the Affirmative Action. That is a very welcoming contradiction.
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 为什么美国的私立大学要录取那么多亚裔,就因为会考试,在家长按排下弾琴画面?如果如此若干年后,这些难以理解回馈母校,又不夠在各领域成为领袖人物,那名校还有意义,还会保持声誉吗?这些长青籘大学是那些校友们捐献的,他们当然有绝对权利决定应该录取谁?所谓的这些“主席”们如此不懂美国的社会,还什么中国科大毕业,丢人!
czhz 回复 悄悄话 还有,赵主席说他的目标是藤校让亚裔比例达到30%以上,这样才能让亚裔孩子不那么辛苦。这可是他演讲的原话。我不知道其他人怎么想,我觉得实在太扯:1)凭什么设定30%的基本线,太霸道了吧?2)要30%的理由居然是不想让自己太辛苦,荒唐到了不值一驳的程度。赵主席当年考科大时也很辛苦,不知他是否告中国教育部; 3) 不要说30%,就算100%录取亚裔,亚裔学生照样辛苦,8所藤校一年也就招1万多不到2万,100%招亚裔,也远远不够,只要不是人人能进,就会人人都拼,这是亚裔的特点。
czhz 回复 悄悄话 @nightrider 肯定是我的问题,因为没看到别人有问题。至于你要的证据,博主是数据专家,可以麻烦他查查约翰逊签署平权法案之前,哈佛亚裔的比例,如果高于5%或当时亚裔在人口中的比例,我会非常惊讶。我之前看过Duke的本科资料,基本是个白人学校。反种族隔离,争取民权和平权,冲锋陷阵的是非洲裔,搭顺风车的是亚裔,不信,你翻翻历史照片,哪有亚裔的影子。

关于第2个,你问错人了,应该让那些认为“废除AA,就能按分数录取” 的人提供根据,为什么“废除AA,就能按分数录取”?因为按常规,废除AA,就是回到AA之前,而AA之前,可不是按照你亚裔的分数录取的。
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @czhz:

Regarding your argument of AA benefiting the Chinese, what evidence do you have to support your two claims?
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 @czhz:

Let me know which sentences do you have difficulty understanding. I will help you. I am sorry I can not type Chinese as I do not have a Chinese word processor right now.

In my haste, I lost two words in the sentence "In the case of a private educational institution, it has the full discretion of deciding which customer (student) to deal with (admit) and what price (tuition fee) the trade (provision of education) take place." It should read "In the case of a private educational institution, it has the full discretion of deciding which customer (student) to deal with (admit) and at what price (tuition fee) the trade (provision of education) to take place." I lost one word in "With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground oppose the Affirmative Action." It should read "With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground you oppose the Affirmative Action." "You" here refers to the author of the blog.

Other than these typos, there is nothing wrong with my English. But please do let me know which parts you do not understand.
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 我小孩申请大学时,当时读的美国著名高中私校,所有的名牌大学的招生办公室都来学校找学生座谈。学校提供每个学生的GPA, Sat 等成绩与历年该校的被某大学,liberal arts college 录取的曲线图分析,每个学生有自己的申请指老师。这些老师们几乎以前都是长青藤招生办公室工作人员。我与小孩的指导老师见面分析,征求小孩意见,选了五个喜欢的,告诉指导老师。并且参加该几所大学来校招生座谈会。这些人记住你了。学校申请完了以后,我再找一些该大学毕业的校友,是我的朋友,请该校本州校友会向学校推荐。…我小孩顺利进了第一选择大学。玩游戏要懂得游戏规则。
Rosaline 回复 悄悄话 他们起诉“录取歧视”是根本不懂这些学校的录取规则。因为决定录取的影响因素很多,不仅仅是分数,什么奖,仅仅essays 就是一个灵活评判标准。私立大学有权决定录用自己喜欢的学生。中国目前是用高考分数线一刀切,造成了这些人的如此思维。
czhz 回复 悄悄话 关于AA,有两个问题要bear in mind: 1) 今天亚裔以5%的人口比例获得20%的藤校及名校学生比例是得益于AA的结果。在实行AA之前的1960s年代,哈佛的亚裔学生比例肯定低于当时亚裔的人口比例,也就是说没有AA, 今天的藤校中亚裔的比例不会超过5%,更不用说20%了; 2)废除AA,并不等于就能象某些人想像的按分数录取,有可能慢慢回到1960s年代之前了。
czhz 回复 悄悄话 是我有问题吗,我怎么读不懂nightrider的“英文”,你们都能读懂吗?
Nba20169 回复 悄悄话 Now for him, I think Anti-AA is a very good excuse to "抛砖引玉 ". Don't you think so?
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 Your point 7)
"7)你起诉的哈佛,哥大,亚裔已经达到了22% 和 28%。 假如再高的话,以后谁为西裔和黑裔社区服务?中国为了培养民族干部,设立了专门的民族学院,普通大学也有民族班,难道美国就不需要培养特定的民族工作人员?"
reeks of the odor of socialistic quota and planned economy. With that premise, it simply begs the question on what ground oppose the Affirmative Action. These kinds of arguments are open invitation for all kinds of racial/gender/class bigotry and the associated frivolous law suits. With that premise, people like 赵宇空 is right to demand a piece of the pie by all means possible, suing the schools included.
nightrider 回复 悄悄话 The truly sad thing about all these fuss with discrimination and the purported remedy Affirmative Action is that the root cause is the meddling of the state (as in nation state, or government) in the private economic affair of the citizens. The private enterprises (the educational business is no exception) have the constitutional guaranteed rights and freedom to decide who to trade with and at what price. In the case of a private educational institution, it has the full discretion of deciding which customer (student) to deal with (admit) and what price (tuition fee) the trade (provision of education) take place. End of story. These frivolous cases and the government meddling (such as Affirmative Action) have no place in a free market economy.
Yangtsz 回复 悄悄话 没想到亚裔比例在这些名校已经这么高。为了进名校百般包装,这样的功利而没有真正才能与理想的学生接受一般高等教育就行了。差别也就是他爸妈的面子和他自己的富足,对我们纳税人人来说回馈不如培养一个贫民的后代使他成为改变他的家族和种族思维生活方式的力量。
[1]
[2]
[尾页]
登录后才可评论.