SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Los Angeles Times is running an article describing the challenges faced by Asian Americans as they apply for acceptance to top colleges.
The article describes the impact that their race and ethnicity has on their SAT scores:
Lee's next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant's race is worth.
She points to the first column. African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column. “Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps. Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
A core tenet of the American philosophy, even from before the days of the Founding Fathers, is that through hard work and excellence one should be able to obtain success in life. But is this ideal even possible when certain underachieving groups are given artificial advantages, while those with the most merit are artificially held back?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2015, @03:22PM
Well, it reminds me of a charity mailing for spinal cord injury research I received a long time ago. Their spokesperson was Christopher Reeve, he wrote the letter, I think it was for his foundation. "Can you possibly imagine, me walking again and enjoying a full life" was part of the pitch, although it was more elegantly put.
I didn't donate to his charity.
I thought if he was smart, he would be a spokeperson for a different kind of medical research (ALS for example), explaining in graphic detail some of the hardships the victims and their caregivers are going through, which people like himself never have to deal with. That would impress people because he would've demonstrated capacity for empathy, and not just for others in the exact same situation (spinal cord injury) that he was in.
Empathy is impressive. Just saying WAAAAAHHHH, I deserve this and that! I'm way more qualified than they are, that's no fair!! is not, except maybe to Slashdot and SN mods. It's pathetic really.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 02 2015, @04:09PM
Oh? Valuing a person's argument because of the color of their skin isn't racist as nine kinds of hell is what you're saying? I respectfully disagree.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 02 2015, @07:59PM
Actually, I thought he made a good spokesman. He clearly knew what he was talking about. (He as also well known, and already wealthy enough to be able to afford all the palliative care available.)
You make a good logical point, but people are basically emotional reasoners. Logic is too slow. and our brains aren't well adapted to it. Emotionally he was appealing in the same way a baby seal is. (Well, ok, not quite the same way, but he appealed to the same general parts of our thinking. It was part of why he made a good actor.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.