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.
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。
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.
"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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
"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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
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.
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 发表评论于
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.
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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
@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?
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 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
@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.
Regarding your argument of AA benefiting the Chinese, what evidence do you have to support your two claims?
nightrider 发表评论于
@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 发表评论于
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。
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 发表评论于
是我有问题吗，我怎么读不懂nightrider的“英文”，你们都能读懂吗？
Nba20169 发表评论于
Now for him, I think Anti-AA is a very good excuse to "抛砖引玉 ". Don't you think so?
nightrider 发表评论于
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 发表评论于
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.
