Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    190,116 link karma
    171,093 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    Sorry, I don't know what part you're talking about.

    Faculty testing? Are you referring to the interview?

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    What? None of what you two are saying is true.

    1. That was the only personal observation, and I respectfully said it was open to debate.

    2. Even if it were an assumption, there is absolutely no reason to put words in my mouth. If you don't like what I say, you do not have the right to make up what I say.

    No facts, no statistics, just your own personal observations.

    • That the SAT doesn't take points away for being a certain ethnicity is a fact.

    • That racial/religious quotas were abolished is a fact.

    • That legacy status is not primary consideration depends on school but is overwhelmingly true. Most schools are open on what is most important/considered. You can check what they consider on pages like "Our Requirements."

    • That your SAT/SAT Subject Test scores aren't the sole determinant of acceptance is a fact. It's essentially becoming an entry requirement to have a certain score unless you can compensate.

    • That need-aware schools will take in students not applying for financial aid is another fact that is intuitive.

    And so on. Please stop making baseless claims. You cannot use lies as an argument. You cannot accuse people of "racism" if their goal is to make a more well-rounded and diverse student body.

    I've sourced the court document that opened Harvard's admissions procedures here and got downvoted. Someone else responded with articles writing about that document and got upvoted. This makes absolutely no sense.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    Both of these articles are referencing the court document I just gave you.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 3 points ago in todayilearned

    That 3.7 stands out to me. When I compared the two, I meant a different tier from ~4.0 to ~3.9... 3.7 would be below average for any top-tier school regardless of AP count (That was way too much!)

    Still, you are right -- admissions are fickle, even the most qualified candidates can be rejected.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 0 points ago in todayilearned

    Like I've referenced several times, you can check how Harvard decided upon its applicants in the notes that were released.

    Notes Asian/Asian Americans students received are really the same as what you'd find for other students. Yes, it makes assumptions on culture and character, but this is based on interview and essay. Why is that racist?

    You may have better chances with their situation as a smaller minority, you also have better chances applying from South Dakota than California. Or Armenia than India. This doesn't mean they are anti-Californian or anti-Indian.

    If you want a basic explanation on how Harvard looks at applicants:

    That’s not unreasonable, so you can go take your downvote and shove it.

    Okay. Have a nice day

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 11 points ago in todayilearned

    I'm not going to make any assumptions because I don't know their situations or applications, and neither do you. I mean, for all we know, she got glowing recommendations, made herself a stand-out application beyond academics, made herself memorable in the interview, and had better essays.

    Scholarships at Princeton also do not have anything to do with academics. They offer need-based scholarships only, no merit-based scholarships... So, that should explain that.

    I should mention that Princeton is also a little different in that is known for being very pro-diversity. If you look at their demographics you can see that they try to balance out racial groups a bit more than other schools.

    I also think you're looking at this the wrong way. I guess there's no use arguing this on Reddit, but I don't see putting down and demeaning other professions and interests as an effective way of assessing people. Being a social worker is great... Princeton is very involved with service so I'm not surprised.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf -6 points ago in todayilearned

    I did not make this claim...

    I don't understand why whenever I make this post defending rationally the admission procedures to these schools, people go on tangents and accuse of something I haven't done. And they always get upvoted, too.

    Please, if you cannot find any real criticism, then do not comment. Fabricated information and personal attacks are not arguments, they are grabs for upvotes and reassurance.

    Have a nice day

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    There aren't statistics... I said:

    Often, what I see

    From my experience,

    and so on. Completely observational and you are free to disagree, I'm only offering an explanation.

    Also, I was specifically talking about Asian American, black, and latino people that apply to Harvard/top schools.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    Congratulations! That's quite an accomplishment.

    It does depend on school, and also depends on how strong your academics are. If you're a world-class student ranking amongst the top, you'll probably be getting in. What I was getting at is a 1590-1600 isn't a crutch, and others shouldn't expect to get into Harvard or any other top school because of that. You have to really be a strong, well-rounded applicant.

    After the fact I'm glad I'm "technically Asian" (as in geographically) but not Asian enough to be considered Asian.

    Me too, haha. I think many are just insecure -- don't let them get to you!

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf -2 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in todayilearned

    Leadership in a school club or sports team isn't really the kind of leadership I was talking about.

    Certainly, that is strong to have, but when I say "leadership" next to "founding an important organization," I'm talking about doing leadership regionally, nationally, internationally... That could be the same thing as founding an organization, but also includes starting a business (yes, before college!), developing an interesting concept with an app or some other project, etc. Organizing the first Science Olympiad in your country, or something like that, too. Some call them "capstone projects."

    Sorry, I should have made myself clear there. From my experience, the Asian American community tends to be more focused on service hours -- which seems justified, because it is a requirement. Often, however, colleges are looking for impact value rather than numerical value.

    Edit: Actually, slight correction: Leading that school club or sports team might be apart of what I said, though, if that group is widely recognized and accomplished! Like being a team captain of one of the top sports teams in your state.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 15 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in todayilearned

    You completely changed your comment to make everyone who responded to you look bad.

    Your edited answer also doesn't have anything to do with what OP asked.

    Harvard is not the SATs.

    SATs do not discriminate, it's just an exam. Harvard does look at race, but it seeks qualified applications that meet their criteria. I've addressed this in this thread* (fixed link)

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 1 points ago in todayilearned

    I already addressed that. Did you see Harvard admission's notes on Asian American applications?

    I addressed the score part too. 1460 is low, but ~1490 tends to be the "benchmark" for top schools.

    Like I said already: A 1490 scorer with a 3.9 GPA, that founded a major organization and won national awards > 1580 scorer with 3.97 GPA, that played piano/volunteered around town and won school competitions.

    Please read my comment as I've covered common concerns.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf -3 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in todayilearned

    It's not true.

    Background questions have absolutely no effect on your SAT score. You can order a score report from CollegeBoard if you want to find out a breakdown of your areas/topics and the question numbers you got right/wrong.

    Edit: His edit, which is completely unrelated, is also not true. The statement:

    an Asian must score 140 not 40 points more than a white to be considered equal footing

    is misinformed and just false. This is NOT how averages work. I also don't think he/she knows how the application process works. I've addressed common concerns in my comment here.

    [–] TIL 1/3 of Harvard students are legacies. toshirotf 10 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago) in todayilearned

    The SAT's do not, it's just an exam.

    There are many other things the SAT has done unfairly recently (reusing an exam, making a 30 point graving curve, etc.) This isn't one of them, though.

    However, many people accuse top institutions of this discrimination. Let me address this.

    You're going to get a ton of replies saying that colleges go harder on Asian/Asian American (and white) students on SAT scores but let me tell you that this is not really true.

    I am Asian American -- part Asian, part white. Those that believe the above are misinformed. U.S. colleges are not looking solely at your score, you should know that if you're applying to top institutions. So a 1580 is really indistinguishable from a 1500 on a solid application. Yes, you can argue that Academic Index calculation and everything, but the truth is top colleges want to see that you performed the best you could in your circumstances and excelled. So while for students with access to best education (think Philips Exeter Academy, Milton Academy), you might be expected to have done some original research, for someone from low-income households and lower quality education, you should have been placed highly in regional competitions.

    The truth is, your SAT and SAT Subject Test scores are basically an entrance score, and it is only a deciding/detracting point when you are a competitive applicant with someone else. So yes, while Asian Americans tend to have higher scores at these top-tier schools and some with higher scores get rejected, they need to understand that this probably is unimportant if your essay isn't compelling, your recommendation letters aren't glowing, your class ranking isn't tip top, your extracurriculars are lacking, and really everything else they check. Asian American students that get accepted average higher scores because they were qualified applicants that tended to have higher scores; black & latino students that get accepted may average lower scores, but are still equally qualified, if not more. In other words they meet the baseline SAT scores institutions are looking for (750+) and other parts of their applications don't fail. (And these students will still score in the top 1% of the nation, so again -- some 10, 20 points is nothing once you meet their target score.) Often, what I see is Asian Americans like me focus too much on GPA and SAT Scores, but don't focus enough or at all on the importance of extracurriculars in comparison to other applicant groups to Harvard. Meaning you might have some solid volunteering hours, but if you didn't create an important organization or demonstrate leadership... These are just below average extracurriculars for them.

    As an Asian American and White student I find this process totally acceptable and everyone else with my background should, too. Don't fall for the "colleges are too liberal now" accusation, colleges are weeding out the best of the best from different groups, and that's really all their is to it. If you do actually check the cases against Harvard from Asian Americans, and the application notes they wrote and released to the public... They really weren't racist. If we're going to be accusing someone of being "too liberal" here, it should be the people that actually think there was malpractice on their end.

    What you SHOULD be upset about is what a top comment pointed out, rich students. Not to generalize here, because there are certainly many brilliant rich students in these schools, but there are also many genuinely unqualified students that get in, especially to need-aware schools (schools that consider your financial status to determine admission; e.g. Tufts or Northeastern). You'd think that these schools would be more generous to students with lower financial status, but this is often not the case. These schools seem to go much easier on the wealthy students to be able to meet full demonstrated need or so they don't exceed their endowment. Qualified applicants that need strong financial packages (and, as well, need acceptance to a school that considers their financial hardship) might get rejected over less qualified applicants that don't apply for financial aid.

    Also to dispel another fiction: Legacy students only get advantages based on school. Some schools really want legacy students, others do not. In general (and this does apply to Harvard), being a legacy student is mainly a deciding factor when a school has to decide between you and another competitive applicant. If you're a legacy student with wealthy background, from a state/country with very few people, and applying binding Early Decision, though, you've got some pretty good chances just as that.

    While we are dispelling fictions: There are no racial quotas in the U.S. anymore. There may be undisclosed target numbers/percentage for diversity purposes -- you go to these schools to learn even beyond textbooks, which often involves learning about other people & places, thus getting a "world-class education."

    [–] 'I will rape you': female journalists face 'relentless' abuse, with more than half of women in media suffering work-related abuse, threats or physical attacks in the past year according to a recent survey toshirotf 7 points ago in worldnews

    All the media and companies are scared shitless of potentially being considered sexist and so have overly aggressively supported the feminist agenda to stay out of the line of fire. They don't give a shit about female equality, they just don't want to lose money.

    The people they were mad about yesterday published many articles on the topic of male suicide.

    [–] 'I will rape you': female journalists face 'relentless' abuse, with more than half of women in media suffering work-related abuse, threats or physical attacks in the past year according to a recent survey toshirotf 5 points ago in worldnews

    I'm not linking the article. Many of the things they post are informative and important.

    Like I said already, it's their comments that don't belong. Rarely is anything productive done, most of the time is spent attacking other groups and affiliations. It's like reading angry, rejected teenage boys address important social issues. Everything said there is so anti- everyone else that they've burned all bridges and shut themselves off from the publicity and help they seek.

    [–] 'I will rape you': female journalists face 'relentless' abuse, with more than half of women in media suffering work-related abuse, threats or physical attacks in the past year according to a recent survey toshirotf 3 points ago in worldnews

    I feel like I sufficiently addressed the issue about "nobody talk[ing] about men."

    Also, having also lived in India myself, I think the part about men in India being told that "women have it worse" when on the topic of depression is fabricated. In fact there tends to be a general disregard towards that.

    Still, appreciate the discourse.

    [–] 'I will rape you': female journalists face 'relentless' abuse, with more than half of women in media suffering work-related abuse, threats or physical attacks in the past year according to a recent survey toshirotf 25 points ago * (lasted edited 5 days ago) in worldnews

    You wanted a reason -- I gave you a reason. That wasn't enough.

    You asked for something on the front page -- I showed you something on that front page. Now that's not enough.

    This, too, is getting pathetic and just seems like you don't want to listen.

    But okay, let's go further.

    Top post:

    Gives a big figure. Puts it in a nice font in a nice picture of a model. Places the "Movember" icon. Okay.

    Then you realize a majority of the comments find some way to get angry about women. Only some say that any suicide is a problem that needs to be addressed. Having more male suicides in a specific country and using this information to say something bad about women is disconnected. The only comment offering help and solutions receives 2 upvotes, everything else is attacking media that reports female suicide and making out an "us vs. the world" narrative.

    Okay, still somewhat understandable. Post doesn't take into account, however, that 2-3x more women attempt suicide. Post is angry about a study The Guardian published on female suicides, also not taking into account that: Per capita suicide in India ranks 25th, but per capita female suicide ranks 7th. Also doesn't take into account that female suicide is 14.7 per 100K in India, compared to 7.2 in the U.S.; whereas male suicide is 17.8 per 100K in India, compared to 23.6 in U.S. They took this as a bigger male problem as a whole, but the Guardian focused specifically on Indian women, not any other nationality, not any other gender, and we can assume that because there is such a discrepancy in rate in comparison to Western countries. Even when you put it into perspective of the world, female suicide rate in India is nearly twice as high as the global female suicide rate (7.7), which is what you should be comparing it to. In addition, nearly 40% of global female suicides are from India, whereas 17% of male suicides are from India, a country with 17.5% of the world's population. This is another reason to study the causes of female suicide in India, which is what the study did. And so on.

    But arguably the biggest gripe I have about their gripe with the thread is that the study was only zeroing in on Indian women for reasons I stated above, and somehow they found a way to victimize all men. That's illogical -- when you talk about the death rate of polar bears, you don't bring up the death rate of brown bears or grizzly bears and get angry at the reporters. Suicide is obviously a widespread problem, why not support studies on both men and women from different parts of the world? If you feel that male suicide is being underrepresented (which I don't think it is -- I feel that businessman suicide especially is a global concern and has been covered in both Western and Asian literature), you shouldn't blame the reporters of one study focusing on one country and one gender. Find a way to promote your issue without throwing other people that face the same issues under the bus. TL;DR: unproductive.

    Not to mention, The Guardian does talk about male suicide:

    All of these articles came from The Guardian. So in effect, not only were they wrong that The Guardian refused to talk talk about them, it seems like they threw a tasteless temper tantrum when they saw that the Guardian had decided not to focus on them for once. This is also really pathetic.

    Second top post:

    Seems like a pretty acceptable issue to talk about, men losing custody battles. It's a complicated and sad issue.

    What's the top comment? :

    She must have fucked up pretty good to be granted male privilege like this. Like got caught abusing the kids in the courtroom.

    And then she blamed him, made a false accusation, and spun herself as the victim.

    Classic toxic femininity.

    This whole comment was an assumption. Like, come on. The entire subreddit at one point flew past "Men's Rights" and landed straight on "Anti- Women's Rights." In reality, both Male Rights activists on that subreddit and the most staunch feminists advocate for similar issues and could easily diffuse their disagreements with a mediated conversation and effectively promote progression for both groups by lobbying and protesting/promoting these issues (such as suicide or court disagreement), but they instead occupy much of their time trying to attack the other and get nowhere.