l******a
发帖数: 16364 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 17:19:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
＂哈佛大学年初时被教育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就
是近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。＂
这个所谓的联系在逻辑上是站不住脚的。我还可以说：
今年是龙年，今年亚裔的录取率就是近年来最高的，比往年增加了15%。
龙年嘛，龙的子孙当然应该沾光了。我这个推断和８０－２０所说的，在逻辑上不分彼
此。况且我这个前提时间上至少有效四个月，比那个十五天长了７倍！
再来看一看所谓１５％的录取率增长。去年（２０１１）是哈佛录取亚裔较低的一年（
２００７－２０１２）。今年恰好是哈佛录取亚裔较高的一年。七年中，录取率就在
１７.６－２０.７％的区间波动。
从这个数据比较中，你能说今年的２０.７％是因为一个有始无终的调查吗？
Data:
Harvard University Class of 2016
Harvard admitted a record low 5.9 percent to the Class of 2016.
1,260 students were admitted regular decision, while 772 were admitted early
. The admit rate for regular decision was 3.8 percent.
20.7 percent of the admits are Asian. 10.2 percent of the admits are African
American. 11.2 percent of the admits are Latino. 10 percent of the admits
are international students.
- - - - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2015
Harvard Admits Record Low 6.2 Percent
Harvard received 34,950 applications this year. 2,158 students were accepted
, or 6.2 percent. Last year, 6.9 percent were admitted.
17.8 percent of the accepted class is Asian American, 11.8 percent is
African American, 12.1 percent is Latino, 1.9 percent is Native American,
and 0.2 percent is Native Hawaiian.
- - - - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2014
Harvard Admits Record Low 6.9 Percent
Harvard received 30,489 applications this year, compared to 29,114
applications last year. 2,110 students were accepted, or 6.9 percent.
A total of 18.2 percent of the admitted students indicated they were Asian-
American (17.5 percent last year), 11.3 percent African-American (10.4
percent last year), 10.3 percent Latino (10.6 percent last year), 2.7
percent Native American (1.1 percent last year) and 0.4 percent Native
Hawaiian (0.2 percent last year).
- - - - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2013
Harvard Admits 7.1 Percent
Harvard received 29,112 applications this year, compared to 27,462
applications last year. 2,046 students, or 7 percent, of the applicants
were admitted, compared to 7.9 percent last year.
Of the admitted students, 10.9 percent are Latino, 10.8 percent are African
American, 17.6 percent are Asian American, and 1.3 percent are Native
American.
- - - - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2012
Harvard Admits 7.1 Percent
Harvard received 27,462 applications this year. This represents an increase
of 18% over last year. 1,948 applicants were admitted, for an admit rate
of 7.1 percent this year, compared to 9 percent last year.
18.5 percent of the admits are Asian American, and 11 percent are African
American.
- - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2011
Harvard Admits 9 Percent Overall
Harvard received a total of 22,955 applications for admission to the Class
of 2011, compared to 22,754 applications received last year. This number
represents an increase of 0.9 percent from last year when Harvard received
22,754 applications. 2,058 applicants, or 9 percent, were accepted.
20 percent of the admits were Asian, 10.7 percent are black, and 10.1
percent are Latino.
- - - - - - - - -
Harvard University Class of 2010
Harvard Admits 9.3 Percent Overall
Harvard saw a slight decrease in the number of applicants to its incoming
class. 22,753 students applied, 77 fewer than last year. Harvard saw a
record number of applicants for the incoming classes of 2008 and 2009,
including a 15 percent increase in applications last year.
2,109 of the applicants, or 9.3 percent, were admitted. Harvard expects a
yield of approximately 78 percent and is aiming for an incoming class of 1,
684.
A record 9.8 percent of the admits are Latino, compared to 8.2 percent last
year. The percentage of African-Americans admits remained constant at 10.5
percent. The percentage of Asian-Americans rose to 17.7 percent, still a
full percentage point below the Class of 1998's mark.
A record 51.8 percent of admitted students are female, up from 49.5 percent
last year.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
side30 (ppl) 于 (Sat Jun 16 17:31:04 2012, 美东) 提到:
让哈佛等大藤、小藤到中国取经，搞中国式大跃进【扩招】，直到满足大部分人的需求
，每年招个两万人，录取率就能突破60%以上了。
另一方面，把这些高校的水平搞烂一点，大家进不去也就无所谓了，心理容易平衡一些
。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 18:35:38 2012, 美东) 提到:
很受不了这个逻辑,看了半天才明白.2008-2012年5年中亚裔录取率按高低排为17.6
; 17.8; 18.2; 18.5; 20.7.
然后北大同学说这5年都在17.6-20.7%之间波动,所以20.7%是正常的.
那如果是23%比如,是不是要说这5年都在17.6-23%波动,所以23%是正常的?... 依次类推.
人家用增长率怎么不准确了? 无话可说. 从2008到2012(2007年增长差不多可以和2012
可以并列), 除了2012年,录取率增长率三年为负,一年低于4%,只有2012年超过15% 倒不
如你的17.6-20.7%区间波动说更准确是吧.
还有你的龙年类比,简直是在抬杠.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 19:38:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
Sorry. 2006-2012. 7 years.
2007, the number was 20%!
推.
2012
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 19:47:13 2012, 美东) 提到:
As to the dragon year and 15% link, if you think that causation is absurd,
then so is the the link between the investigation and the 15% increase!
Dragon year and the investigation both happened in 2012 together with the 15
% increase. There is no proof that either of the two events CAUSED the
rate increase.
Harvard admission process does NOT start in February, but in January.
Assuming, arguendo, after the February notice of the pending investigation,
Harvard admission office had a meeting and discussed the issue. Was there
any record or indication that such things happened??? Also, was there any
change in their admission policy or practice after the meeting? Was there
any number comparing the Asian admission rate before and after the notice
of investigation?
If you have evidence of a meeting, memo, email exchange, phone conversations
, etc., then you do have a point in establishing the link between the
investigation and the rate hike.
If not, then in terms of being a reason for the rate hike, the dragon year
reference is as likely as the investigation reference.
至于龙年和15％的链接，如果您认为原因是荒谬的，那么是调查和15％量体裁衣之间的
链接！
龙年和调查都一起发生在2012年增长15％。没有任何证据，这两个事件之一造成的速度
递增。
哈佛大学录取过程中不会在二月开始，但在1月。
假设，arguendo二月，以待调查通知后，哈佛招生办公室进行了会晤，并讨论了这个问
题。没有任何记录或指示发生这样的事情吗？此外，会议结束后在他们的录取政策或做
法有任何变化吗？在那里任何调查通知之前和之后的数量比较亚洲的入学率？
如果你有证据会议，备忘录，电子邮件交流，电话交谈等，然后你有一个建立的调查与
加息之间的联系点。
如果没有，那么在加息的理由方面，龙年参考调查范围是可能的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 19:55:54 2012, 美东) 提到:
从2006-2012，问题也一样的。
2006-2012 录取率从低到高排是：17.6; 17.7; 17.8; 18.2; 18.5; 20.0(2007); 20.7.
然后你得出结论录取率是17.6-20.7%之间，所以20.7%是正常的。那比如21%呢？21.5%
呢？你是不是也要用同样的区间波动论说明是正常的？反正2012 年是最高的，你只要
扩大你的右限。
不要说那个20%是6年前的了，近几年全部是低于18.5%的。
增长率呢，2007年超过了10%，2008-2011三年负增长一年低于4%，然后2012年超过15%
。 你觉得比较增长率不如你的区间波动有意义？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 19:59:35 2012, 美东) 提到:
As..., then ....
那是你的逻辑，不是大多数接受的正常逻辑。
很多人在隔壁贴也给你举例了，我再把我的例子搬过来：
你要证明下你的结论：为什么一个歧视之嫌的调查，因为15天后被撤销了，就没有作用。
比如你有什么错误被人匿名信了，你使用关系摆平了，但这匿名信真的对你的行为一点
影响都没有吗？
另外不知道类似的哈佛的歧视之嫌的调查，多大比例被撤，一般多少天被撤。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:00:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
If you check the data, in one year, one of the groups' admission rate
increased 100%!
No one see to link that rate increase with any investigation or donation
what so ever.
It just happened.
.7.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:02:36 2012, 美东) 提到:
Likewise, the rate dropped from 20% to 18.5% from 2007 to 2008. Was
it because the discrimination against Asian applicants got a boost from
somewhere or someone???
Oh, yeah, I remembered. Mr. Obama was elected President in 2008! That's it.
Obama caused the rate drop. Period. Obama's presidential campaign
discriminated MORE against Asian in 2008 than Mr. Bush did in 2007! It is
absurd, isn't it?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:11:34 2012, 美东) 提到:
还有你这一段，没有任何会议记录信件往来表明招生政策因为被调查而改变，你就证明
了是和被调查无关？
另外如果招生政策和被调查无关，怎么就能证明你的龙年说就是原因了呢？
If you have evidence of a meeting, memo, email exchange, phone conversations
, etc., then you do have a point in establishing the link between the
investigation and the rate hike.
If not, then in terms of being a reason for the rate hike, the dragon year
reference is as likely as the investigation reference.
你是用GOOGLE TRANSLATE翻译的自己的英文？
15
,
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
LoanSeeker (Need Better Loan) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:12:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
2008, Bush re-elected?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:18:45 2012, 美东) 提到:
Faint. Will change right away!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:18:45 2012, 美东) 提到:
你太混乱了，拍脑门就想出原因了。
奥巴马2008年当选，2009就职。你再想点其他原因解释2008年的下降吧。然后用你这逻
辑，2011年的下降还不好解释了。
对于你的第一句话：不是说2012年的增长由于什么原因，以前年度的降低就一定要因为
同一因素的反方向作用。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:20:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
这改动可不好改，不是改个年份就行了，要推翻你的论点了。要好好想想。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:21:47 2012, 美东) 提到:
The point is to link two events happended in the same year as one caused the
other, without any solid proof, is absurd! Correlation does not equal
causation.
For example, today we discussed AA. On Monday, Wall Street crashed! Then
one says: because we discussed AA on June 16, 2012, Wall Street was afrraid.
Thus, the market crashed on June 18, 2012.
Wonderful.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
inblack (inblack) 于 (Sat Jun 16 20:51:04 2012, 美东) 提到:
你回答下这个问题：
如果你有什么一直犯的错误被人匿名信告发了，你使用关系摆平了，那这匿名信对你以
后的行为一点
影响都没有吗？你会不会收敛一些？
the
afrraid.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 21:54:20 2012, 美东) 提到:
The necessary assumption of your argument is that I MADE a mistake FIRST.
That might not be the case!
That's why I emphasize on EVIDENCE, like meetings, memos, emails, changes in
admission patterns before and after the allegation. These are called
EVIDENCE, not some far-fetched, and imaginary reasoning!
In case you DO have the assumption in mind, your argument is similar to a
circular argument: Beida was wrong doing A. Therefore when there was
allegation against him, he was affraid. So Beida reduced the frequency of
doing A. Therefore, the reduction of doing A PROVES that Beida was wrong in
the first place!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 22:06:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
For example, to EXPLAIN the link between Obama's campaign and the 2008 rate
drop, I could say:
Because Obama is a Harvard graduate and he is black, Harvard felt that it
was appropriate to celebrate the occasion by accepting MORE African American
students. However, to keep the same or similar number of White students,
Harvard decided to cut the Asian Admission rate by 1.5 percentage point!
And Harvard did not fear any allegations of wrongdoings because it could
argue: Hey I admitted more African Americans student in 2008 than in 2007.
Therefore, I could not be more discriminative against minorities in 2008
than in 2007.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
zing20 (五湖四海) 于 (Sat Jun 16 22:49:44 2012, 美东) 提到:
你就继续钻你的牛角尖吧！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 23:45:15 2012, 美东) 提到:
The admission rate for African Americans dropped from 11.8% (2011) to 10.2%
(2012). That is a HUGE drop, almost 14% decrease in one year. Shouldn't the
African American community occupy Harvard for an explanation or shouldn't
someone accuse Harvard of racial discrimination against the Black?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sat Jun 16 23:47:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
We should encourage rejected student to sue Harvard every year so that the
admission rate for the race of the complaining party would get up to 15%
increase THAT year!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
InStyle (精致生活) 于 (Sun Jun 17 00:05:39 2012, 美东) 提到:
我有个朋友孩子没被哈佛录取时候确实想到过sue，但是后来考虑到双码农家庭
没钱没时间和哈佛耗，只能做罢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
pyqz7 (submartingale) 于 (Sun Jun 17 00:59:31 2012, 美东) 提到:
It looks like that you do have a lot of time. Why don't you join 8 0-20 to
make it better or think of some ways to help our whole population. If you
can't do anything but keep fussy about some newspaper data, I strongly
sugguest you stop using Beida ID.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:07:20 2012, 美东) 提到:
You should refer your friends to 80-20!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:20:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
Build an Asian-funded U.S. university.
Stop fighting against other minorities.
If 80-20 cares about their effectiveness as an organization, they should at
least proofread their own propaganda materials before translating them into
Chinese. In politics, reputation is almost everything.
Plus, I took umbrage at 80-20's approach of using the vote bloc as the MAIN
weapon to gain inroad in the political arena. It's suicidal and non-
productive in the long run. Swinging from one candidate to another would
produce neither consistent policy nor long-lasting collaboration.
Simply put, racial preferential treatment is only a fraction of the bigger
political struggles. Hoping that the political candidate chosen by 80-20 to
HELP Asian is not a winning recipe because the same candidate has OTHER
obligations to other ethnic groups who might have the exact opposite demands
when comparing with those of the Asian group.
That is a losing battle.
80-20 only has 3,150 official members. Remember, this is a political group
which claims to represent the Asian community! I just could not fathom how
3000+ members could represent million more people!
As to how I use my time and how I choose my ID, that is my right. My
interest lies in the logical reasoning and I would not tolerate lies.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
InStyle (精致生活) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:23:18 2012, 美东) 提到:
she told me about 80-20!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:29:49 2012, 美东) 提到:
LOL.
But seriously, unless they can PROVE Harvard wrongfully rejected their kid,
what Harvard did was legitimate.
Considering the single digit acceptance rate. Out of more than 35,000
applicants, only 2,100 would be admitted. No one could say for sure that
the other 33,000 applicants are LESS qualified than those those 2,100 who
were admitted. But that is just life. They call those attributes
intangibles for a reason. Even if they just roll the dice to make their
decisions, those who are chosen would still be ridiculously good than anyone
else (who apply to other schools)!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 01:45:15 2012, 美东) 提到:
The fact that an organization has to win support for its cause by offering
voter support as a returning favor indicates that the organization CANNOT
convince the majority of the U.S. citizens that what the organization tries
to do is beneficial to the whole nation.
Align your own interests as an ethnic group with the rest of the U.S
population. Present your argument why improving the conditions of an ethnic
group is in the best interest of the U.S. Numerate the contributions by
and achievement of members of an ethnic group and gain people's trust and/or
support in return.
That is a much better and probably more fruitful approach than trading votes!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 02:19:58 2012, 美东) 提到:
感慨一下：
这是本人几天来几乎唯一一次没有挨 PA 的贴子。
再感慨一下：
某些国人 PA 的兴趣真是比美国国债还高。但 PA 这种行为的 ROI 就不得而知了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alderbrook (Alderbrook) 于 (Sun Jun 17 03:46:54 2012, 美东) 提到:
These schools (Harvard and Princeton in particular) are under tremendous
pressure to do something clandestinely without admitting any guilt that
there is some bias against AsAms, as a hedge for the uncertain future,
because of (1) the pending Supreme Court case (Fisher vs UT Austin) and (2)
the DOE investigation (the investigation on Harvard has been withdrawal, the
one on Princeton is continuing). This is the most plausible reason to
explained the data (2008-2012年5年中亚裔录取率按高低排为17.6
; 17.8; 18.2; 18.5; 20.7.) Please rest assured the AsAm admission number
will dropped promptly to 18% if the Supreme Court rules in Oct that race
conscious is OK.
Schools (as well as the general society) always respond to pressure without
admitting any guilt. Harvard did the same thing in 1989-1990 when it came
under DOE investigation for the exact same reason in 1988-1989. If you want
to read more about this topic, and learn (1) why the AsAm admission rate
dropped again after 1990 (2) How did the Black EARNED their current AA
advantage through their actions (3) How did the Jews changed their
deplorable situation (the same reasons for AsAms were used on the Jews to
limit the Jewish enrollment) through their actions, please read "The Chosen,
The Hidden History Of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and
Princeton" by Jerome Karabel.
What 80-20 did is to add to the pressure. I think it is much more effective
than wasting time here to discuss why we should NOT do anything and why
anyone who did anything is either lying or not effective.
This is exactly what every Asian American should do: complain loudly.
Squeaky wheels get the oil. We Asian Americans don't squeak, therefore
always gets the raw deal no one else wants. Some of us may even be
enlightened enough to suggest we should altruistically make rooms for others
, as if others will thank us. There is nothing wrong with that view either,
as long as you don't force other people who are not willing to give up their
rightful interest to give up their right nonetheless.
With this in mind, I have a perfect solution:
1) Those support race conscious admission VOLUNTEER to give us their kids'
seat to the black and Hispanics as a personal commitment to their strong
conviction.
2) Those support race neutral admission would hold their kids' seat as long
as they are the best qualified candidates.
Now we have achieved world peace. Please give Beida101 (北大学子) some
slack. People are entitled to their views, unless he/she makes scenario 1)
MANDATORY and force it on people who don't like race conscious stuff.
We deserve our treatment because our silence.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sealight (我挺艾未未，谭作人，赵连海等等维权人士) 于 (Sun Jun 17 03:51:09 2012, 美东) 提到:
说得好极了 , 100% 支持!
)
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sealight (我挺艾未未，谭作人，赵连海等等维权人士) 于 (Sun Jun 17 04:11:42 2012, 美东) 提到:
你只看到了录取比例增加的表面现象,你看到了出类拔萃的亚裔孩子在申请人中
的比例上升的幅度吗?
或许亚裔美国人申请人数的增长率远高于录取率的增长率呢?
或许比起五年前,同样资质的亚裔孩子五年前能被录取,而现在因为亚裔申请者
人数大增而无法获得录取呢？
我这么说虽然没有直接数据来做support, 可是客观想想是非常可能的．
中国大陆来美国读博士是８５年左右因cuspia而开始的，但是大潮是９２年以后，
托福和gre考试开始流行以后．
逐年增加． 这些高学历的人的孩子， 才是大量增加哈佛优质申请者的华裔主力．
以前偷渡过来的打工者， 因为没时间教养孩子，孩子是很少机会能报考哈佛的．
同理，适合印度裔的孩子．印度来美国读硕士博士，也是９０年代之后才大量
增长的． 正好也伴随美国研究生院大量扩招， 大量提供全额奖学金给中印
和其他亚洲学生．
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 10:44:01 2012, 美东) 提到:
Possible reason (A) perfectly explained the rate hike to 20.7% in 2012 is
not due to the complaint filed by the rejected applicant.
Possible reason (B) indirectly explained the rate hike to 20.7% in 2012 is
not due to the complaint filed by the rejected applicant.
Possible reason (C) is definitely right considering the drop in the total
acceptance rate. Then again, the same can be said to other ethnic groups
from the White to the Black! The bar has been raised higher every year. Has
anyone studied the trend in admission for OTHER ethnic groups? Is it harder
or easier in 2012 than in 2007?
Statement (D) highlighted the weakness of possible reasons (A)-(C): NO hard
data to support any of this! NO hard evidence to prove that the Asian
American candidates were discriminated MORE than the Whites or the Blacks
were!
Even a rocket scientist could not reach any conclusion by studying five
different rates in five years plus some SAT or GPA numbers.
If you want to bring down the house, throwing nails at the walls is much
less effective than throwing a hammer or even a cannon!
（A）完全解释在2012年20.7％的加息的可能原因不是由于拒绝申请人提
出的申诉。
（B）间接原因可能解释加息在2012年的20.7％，不是由于被拒绝的申请人提交的投
诉。
可能的原因（C）是绝对正确的考虑在总录取率下降。话又说回来，同样可以说是从白
到黑的其他族群！酒吧已经提出了更高的每年。有没有人研究接纳其他族群的趋势？更
难或更容易在2012年比2007年？
声明（D）突出的弱点可能的原因（A） - （C）：没有确切的数据，以支持任何！没有
确凿的证据证明，亚裔候选人超过白人或黑人被歧视！
即使是火箭科学，未能达成任何结论，通过学习五种不同的利率在五年，再加上一些
SAT或协定号码。
如果你想要把一屋子，扔在墙上的钉子是远远低于有效地扔了锤子，甚至一炮！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 11:17:43 2012, 美东) 提到:
1) I am glad that NOW you revealed that "the investigation on Harvard has
been withdrawal [sic]." This is in great contrast to your statement 10 days
earlier "然而在这个案子上，你的投入应当是有回报的。哈佛大学年初时被教育部调
查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是近年来最高的，比往年增加
了15%。”At least you were trying to hide something in the same sense of the
allegation that Harvard is doing something in clandestinely. Speaking of
the latter, where is the proof either Harvard or Princeton ARE doing
something secretely [sic]? Did you spy on them? Do you have memos, emails,
phone calls, or mind-reading abilities to prove your claim?
2)20.7% rate in 2012. In 2007, the rate was 20%. In 1998, the rate was 18.7
%. Did anyone accuse Harvard of wrongdoings in either late 2007 and early of
2008, or in late 1997 and early 1998? As Sealight has rightfully pointed
out, the reason for the rate hike in 2012 could be either (A) 出类拔萃的亚裔
孩子在申请人中的比例上升的幅度; or (B)亚裔美国人申请人数的增长率远高于录取率
的增长率. I think he does have a point. Considering the publication of
numerous Chinese books on the subject of How to Get Into Harvard, it is
possible that those books worked, and worked too well!
3) Schools (as well as the general society) always respond to pressure
without admitting any guilt. True. You also admitted the "omitted"
withdrawal of Harvard investigation, although not openly or directly. If
you think this "intimidation" strategy is the way to go, then file at least
one complaint every year from now on and see the rate goes through the roof.
As to which strategy is more efficient, an honest investigation without
manipulation of facts is the BETTER one. Lying is not good for either a kid
or an organization.
4) I laugh at the following statement:
"I have a perfect solution: 1) Those support race conscious admission
VOLUNTEER to give us their kids' seat to the black and Hispanics as a
personal commitment to their strong conviction.
2) Those support race neutral admission would hold their kids' seat as long
as they are the best qualified candidates." You are in NO position to either
allocate the seats or predict the allocation of the seats in a given year.
In addition, people are entitled to their beliefs and their freedom to do
what THEY think is right, not what others think is think.
5) Finally, it is better for you to translate your post into Chinese, as not
every reader on this forum would read such a long English writing.
1）我很高兴，现在你透露说：“在哈佛大学的调查已经撤出。”这是10天前在巨大的
反差，你的发言 "然而在这个案子上，你的投入应当是有回报的。哈佛大学年初时被教
育部调查是否在录取上对亚裔有歧视之嫌，今年亚裔的录取率就是近年来最高的，比往
年增加了15%。” 至少你试图隐藏在同样的意义上，哈佛正在做的东西在暗中指控的东
西。说到后者，是证明，无论是哈佛或普林斯顿正在偷偷做的做的事情 secretely [原
文]吗？你窥视他们吗？你有备忘录，电子邮件，电话，或读心的能力，以证明你的说
法吗？
2）在2012年20.7％的速度。在2007年，其发生率为20％。在1998年，其发生率为18.7
％。没有人指责的不法行为哈佛要么2007年底和2008年初，或在1997年年底和1998年初
吗？作为Sealight已正确地指出，在2012年加息的原因可能是（A）出类拔萃的亚裔孩
子在申请人中的比例上升的幅度，或（B）亚裔美国人申请人数的增长率远高于录取率
的增长率。我认为他确实有一个点。考虑到众多的中国图书出版如何进入哈佛的主题，
它是可能的，这些书籍的工作，工作太出色！
3）学校（以及一般社会）总是应对压力，不承认任何内疚。真实的。你也承认，“省
略”哈佛调查撤出。如果你认为这种“恐吓”战略是要走的路，然后提交至少有一宗从
现在起，每年率通过屋顶。至于哪个战略是更有效的，一个没有操纵的事实是最好的一
个诚实的调查。撒谎是不是一个孩子或一个组织良好。
4）我笑在下面的语句：“我有一个完美的解决方案：1）那些支持种族意识入场义勇军
给我们
个人的承诺，他们坚信他们的孩子的座位，黑人和西班牙裔。2）那些支持种族中立入
场将举行他们的孩子的座位，只要他们是最有资格的候选人。“您现在的位置来分配议
席，或预测在某一年的议席分配。
5）最后，它是更好地为您翻译成中文后，没有每一个在这个论坛的读者会读这么长的
英文写作。
)
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yakexi (亚克西) 于 (Sun Jun 17 11:22:16 2012, 美东) 提到:
日。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 11:33:21 2012, 美东) 提到:
感慨一下：
这是本人几天来几乎唯一一次没有挨 PA 的贴子。
再感慨一下：
某些国人 PA 的兴趣真是比美国国债还高。但 PA 这种行为的 ROI 就不得而知了。
There goes my first statement. But the second one still holds.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Beida101 (北大学子) 于 (Sun Jun 17 12:17:48 2012, 美东) 提到:
One more data point, 772 students were early decisions while 1260 were
regular admitted. That means at least more than 1/3 admissions have been
made before Feb. 2, 2012, the day of the start of the investigation.
Unless someone proves that the 20.7% rate hike was largely a result of the
the regular admission rate changes after Feb. 2, 2012, there is little
connection between the rate hike and the investigation.
In God We Trust. Everyone Else? Bring your DATA!
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
happy27 (happy) 于 (Mon Jun 18 16:17:35 2012, 美东) 提到:
我真是受不了lz 了。自我感觉太良好了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangyi (佳庭主父) 于 (Mon Jun 18 19:26:06 2012, 美东) 提到:
楼主还是不要太依赖机器翻译了。否则，中文真是成问题了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sky (天) 于 (Mon Jun 18 20:38:17 2012, 美东) 提到:
so what? PA只是大家对你的鄙视的表现方法之一，没有PA你觉得别人就不鄙视你了么
。三四十岁的人了，谁还没骂过几句娘啊，再高等的白大人黑大人也有骂娘的时候。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sayyousayme (sayyousayme) 于 (Mon Jun 18 21:56:26 2012, 美东) 提到:
同意，楼主的逻辑令人担忧。
明显的就是， 亚裔录取率创了新高，这15%可真不容易。
为了孩子，也为了美国的未来， 支持亚裔维权。
推.
2012
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
didadida (滴滴嗒嗒) 于 (Tue Jun 19 09:48:52 2012, 美东) 提到:
跑到中文论坛用英语发文，然后给出对照的中文，这是什么精神?
15
,
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangyi (佳庭主父) 于 (Tue Jun 19 10:12:05 2012, 美东) 提到:
普世
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
yangyi (佳庭主父) 于 (Tue Jun 19 10:15:33 2012, 美东) 提到:
某些国人 PA 的兴趣真是比美国国债还高。
这算不算对某一特定群体的攻击？尽管我不清楚他说的“国人”是指哪国人。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
chaoz (面朝大海，吃碗凉皮) 于 (Wed Jun 20 18:22:58 2012, 美东) 提到:
鼓掌，撒花
)
the
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
chaoz (面朝大海，吃碗凉皮) 于 (Wed Jun 20 18:29:49 2012, 美东) 提到:
No need.
If the argument is A -> B, you can't disprove A if B happened twice while A
only happened once, because we might have C -> B as well.
Now we have DATA, you still have no clue on how to interpret it.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
dmso21101 (NeoPower) 于 (Thu Jun 21 01:19:56 2012, 美东) 提到:
同意！这人真是有时间！自然而然的BSO，连ID都是BSO：101中学到北大？ |
|
