For what it’s worth, at least some of the DEI initiatives in college admissions that I’m aware of already are focused on rural and underserved populations. That encompasses urban areas as well.
You don't think we can survive without the Chinese coders?
What will the Chinese do cut off from US intellectual capacity?
Did the Chinese create all this shit we're talking to each across? No... they can't create shit.
What is the last innovation the Chinese created for the world (not counting the stuff they stole) ?
The country doesnt encourage innovation and it never will. That would challenge the power structure too much.
It's a society not built on freedom of thought and expression. Leeches at best.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
C'mon Twenty. I said this in another thread to Sglowrider when he tried to paint all or most Indians with a broad brush: there are 1.4 billion Chinese. They have many, many hard working, brilliant people there. Yes, they have a political system that would benefit from liberalization, but do we really think they can't do any innovation?
Of course, we are assisting the Chinese by providing access to the world's best universities. And maybe we should reconsider (or use it as a bargaining chip).
The universities sucking up that sweet, sweet overseas cash tho.....Great, yet another lobby.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Under their current system, no, they aren't innovators. Twenty is 100% correct. The Chinese steal everything they make and then mass produce it (usually poorly or inferior to the original) and sell it cheap. They can do this because they have a billion people they can exploit and none of the pesky rules about worker and consumer protections like we have in the U.S.
He is also correct that we should be removing Chinese individuals from schools (Edit to add: not ethnically Chinese but citizens of China). Often these folks come here and serve as enforcers for the CCP while also getting schooled up to be our competitors. The Chinese have police stations all over the world, including NYC, that they are using to harass and intimidate their people and those who have emigrated from the country.
They are our enemy.
I said they do not have a civil society system that encourages innovation.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A lot of this for me is disputing your and Twenty's language. Refer to the nation or government and not the people. No doubt the current government appears to incentivize stealing IP. And no doubt that government is doing bad things (Uyghers are the prime example, but the extra-territorial harassment of students is another, crack down on Hong Kong, etc.). But using the word leeches is hard to swallow because it sure seems directed at the people.
I also don't like the use of the word "enemy," especially with the use of "they." Too much potential for that to turn into prejudice/bigotry directed towards a set of people in day-to-day interactions. Also think that tends to legitimize violence/war/military action w/r/t them, when neither of us have declared war. They might be an economic competitor, though. Big difference. I admit ignorance of what all China is doing on the world stage, although I have a vague understanding.
Found this interesting article, by the way, supporting your history but hypothesizing that the demographic crunch from China's one-child policy will require them to become innovators:
China’s New Innovation Advantage
Long considered a global copycat, China is now home to many of the fastest start-ups to reach a $1 billion valuation globally. Whatever has propelled Chinese companies to the top, the metrics we use to evaluate innovation have missed it. The author argues that China today has a resource that no...
hbr.org
The government of China and anyone who supports the same are our enemies. I don't know what other term would work. The Soviet Union was our enemy and we never directly fired a shot at their country (we would engage them when they would do things like send pilots to fight for North Korea under the North Korean flag).A lot of this for me is disputing your and Twenty's language. Refer to the nation or government and not the people. No doubt the current government appears to incentivize stealing IP. And no doubt that government is doing bad things (Uyghers are the prime example, but the extra-territorial harassment of students is another, crack down on Hong Kong, etc.). But using the word leeches is hard to swallow because it sure seems directed at the people.
I also don't like the use of the word "enemy," especially with the use of "they." Too much potential for that to turn into prejudice/bigotry directed towards a set of people in day-to-day interactions. Also think that tends to legitimize violence/war/military action w/r/t them, when neither of us have declared war. They might be an economic competitor, though. Big difference. I admit ignorance of what all China is doing on the world stage, although I have a vague understanding.
Found this interesting article, by the way, supporting your history but hypothesizing that the demographic crunch from China's one-child policy will require them to become innovators:
China’s New Innovation Advantage
Long considered a global copycat, China is now home to many of the fastest start-ups to reach a $1 billion valuation globally. Whatever has propelled Chinese companies to the top, the metrics we use to evaluate innovation have missed it. The author argues that China today has a resource that no...
The government is our enemy. Their soldiers are our enemy. Those who work for their government to steal technological secrets, spy, enforce the will of their government outside of its borders are our enemy. Those who are using Tik Tok to spy on Americans (Google it) are our enemy. Some rice farmers sitting in some far away province is not a bad person who needs to be treated in a rude manner, but if a war does start they are likely to be our enemy, just like the Russians getting round up and thrown into the US backed Ukrainian meat grinder.
I get what you are saying to an extent, but I look at the Chinese Nation clear eyed. We are locked in a confrontation with them about what the world should look like, their version or ours...and frankly if you look around, they are winning. We collectively need to wake the hell up.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Last time I flew to China - upon landing - I immediately started getting lit up by email that my accounts have been hacked. That’s when I decided I’m not going back.A lot of this for me is disputing your and Twenty's language. Refer to the nation or government and not the people. No doubt the current government appears to incentivize stealing IP. And no doubt that government is doing bad things (Uyghers are the prime example, but the extra-territorial harassment of students is another, crack down on Hong Kong, etc.). But using the word leeches is hard to swallow because it sure seems directed at the people.
I also don't like the use of the word "enemy," especially with the use of "they." Too much potential for that to turn into prejudice/bigotry directed towards a set of people in day-to-day interactions. Also think that tends to legitimize violence/war/military action w/r/t them, when neither of us have declared war. They might be an economic competitor, though. Big difference. I admit ignorance of what all China is doing on the world stage, although I have a vague understanding.
Found this interesting article, by the way, supporting your history but hypothesizing that the demographic crunch from China's one-child policy will require them to become innovators:
China’s New Innovation Advantage
Long considered a global copycat, China is now home to many of the fastest start-ups to reach a $1 billion valuation globally. Whatever has propelled Chinese companies to the top, the metrics we use to evaluate innovation have missed it. The author argues that China today has a resource that no...
That country’s government (spoiler alert: the government is everybody) can kiss it.
I don't think you should take your own smart phone to a country like that. Buy a burner flip phone and live without the internet for your time in country.
I also think we are effectively hijacking this thread...lol. Back to college admissions.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t understand your point. I say that with peace and love.
Why does the world need PhD computational neuroscientists? So we can hasten our evolution to cyborgs? I say that tongue in cheek. Either way, without a cataclysmic war, the US and Western Europe and perhaps Japan will remain the epicenters of innovation and research - in all industries. The Columbia education your BIL is giving these guys is going to result in them returning to China and trying to use their skills to reverse engineer shit that’s already been built. Their house of cards economy won’t last without it.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I couldn’t begin to understand how. But it happened before I even landed - while the phone was in airplane mode at altitude.
Absolutely everyone knows this but it doesn't get the political or media bang that race-based admissions do.
Oh for ****s sake at least try to pretend to be honest. Democrats thought they had answers to health care. They asked republicans to bring their own answers to the table as well. Republicans said, Sod off, we don't believe it's in our political interests to do any governing right now.
And then you got power, and it turned out the GOP never had any health care answers anyway. The only goal of the GOP was too prevent any kind of health care reform at all.
Tbf what's the alternative? Without foreign born students who would be developing the basic research/deep science, never mind the applied sciences?
The key is to make it hospitable that they want to stay in the states and not make it uncomfortable that they prefer to leave
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I would guess the alternative would be:
(1) U.S. citizens;
(2) foreign citizens from nations whose goals/status aren't antithetical to the U.S.'s.
Option (2) is just a form of trade with foreign nations. If you do X or don't do Y, we'll let your kids have access to our first-class universities (that we, in the U.S., pay for, one way or another).
When you have 100-200k in student loans, you can't afford to do a PhD. Besides it's not part of the culture. The rule is get a degree and then go out and earn the big bucks. Everyone are socialised like that incl me.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Yes, we should address both of those issues here in the U.S. And I also agree, that we should make things attractive here to continue to attract foreign-born scientists, etc. to move here. Re China, I think we already do, don't we?
Re:China ... I think the last few years have made it uncomfortable for them being in the states. I know in the past, a few of my Bil's china students stayed behind. One of them sold his startup and made a few hundred millions.
But I think many have gone back recently because of the funding and opportunities back home.
Whats ironic is my bil gets some funding on his research interests from the US military.... Wait for the outrage here..... 🤣
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
If your BIL is a Chinese national then something has gone seriously wrong.
I am not in favor of colleges giving racial preferences in student admissions. Although most college admissions decisions are made based on race and hope to create racial diverse groups of students. Basically, I am against it.
It is alright to consider it but that should not be anything more than one factor. Since some of the court members were former faculty members it will be interesting to see how they come down on the issue.
Was there a right wing private thread conspiracy to screw up you poll?74% of Americans are against racial preferences in college admissions. College administrators are all-in on it--creating DEI positions and departments to impose "equity" on campus, within faculty, and in the make-up of student bodies. The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear another case on this issue.
Opinion | A More Diverse America Turns Against Racial Preferences
California voters backed the 1996 ban by a 9-point margin. By 2020 the gap had widened to 14 points.www.wsj.com
"When Proposition 16 was put on the ballot—a provision to repeal the state’s prohibition of racial preferences—Californians voted it down by a 14-point margin. Even a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for Joe Biden affirmed its opposition to racial preferences. What explained the split?
What nobody realized was that the entire country had become increasingly hostile to the use of race in such decisions. A 2022 Pew Research Center poll found that 74% of Americans oppose the use of race in college admissions. Even more surprising, 68% of Hispanics, 63% of Asians and 59% of blacks also opposed it. The same applied to both political parties, with 87% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats objecting.
But as the public attempted to slam the door shut on racial preferences, the universities were busy trying to open it wide. The stealthy end-runs around the law gave way to support for “equity”: the desire for racial proportionality in all things—never mind that the Supreme Court has held that quotas in college admissions are unlawful. Accordingly, many colleges have begun to abandon the use of test scores in applications.
In line with this hardening of campus attitudes, increasingly powerful diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies arose to achieve these aims. Consider The University of California, Berkeley, which now has a Division of Equity and Inclusion, a title that gives it a standing on campus equivalent to its Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The university’s division has an array of highly paid managers. Eight have the title “director,” one of which is for “diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging,” and there are several assistant vice chancellors. Similar offices abound on campuses across the country, where they are major actors in promoting all manner of progressive causes, from social justice to critical race theory and anticapitalism.
The most visible sign of DEI’s clout is its gradually seizing control of faculty appointments. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, DEI personnel prescreen applicants for all faculty positions and can throw out applications whose mandatory statements of commitment to diversity they don’t like. At Berkeley about 75% of applicants for a teaching position in life sciences were rejected in this stage during the 2018-19 academic year. The prescreening resulted in Hispanics representing 59% of the finalists, despite comprising only 14% of applicants. White applicants made up 14% of the final pool, down from their original 54%."
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Are you admitting to something here, stoll?
I thought the numbers surprising, actually--probably would have predicted a 50/50 split. These numbers tend to validate the article posted.
Numbers are surprising. Without knowing who’s voting, they don’t mean much.
For what it’s worth, I voted no and no one told me how to vote.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Republicans don’t have room to be calling any other republicans names. @Aloha Hoosier would vote for Biden if the only choice was Trump. If Trump is the only choice against Biden, I’ll vote for Trump. I disagree with Aloha but I am thrilled he’s a republican and I am not giving him any grief.
I wonder what liberals call democrats that are pro life? I’ve heard liberals say they don’t want those folks in their party.
Similar threads
Normalizing the idea of ignoring or throwing out the Constitution
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 3 4 5
Hamline, DEI, and consumerism in higher ed
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler
