<p>I have a request from those who support the use of race as a factor. This request is open to anyone who believes in such an idea.</p>
<p>Please explain to me why using a factor that no one can control (ie. race), even as one of many, is fair.</p>
<p>I'm sympathetic to your argument, but the admission process -- and life -- is full of decisions made on the basis if factors that no one can control. You talked about skin color, but here are some others that are and will be used as decision factors through life:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Looks (an obvious source of bias)</p></li>
<li><p>Athletic ability (why are athletic scholarships only available to good athletes?)</p></li>
<li><p>Intelligence (smart people, on average, have more opportunities, make more money, etc.)</p></li>
<li><p>Height</p></li>
<li><p>Musical talent</p></li>
<li><p>Math skills</p></li>
<li><p>Reading ability</p></li>
<li><p>Political beliefs (I didn't get a job offer once after my prospective manager started arguing politics with me over lunch at our last interview)</p></li>
<li><p>Writing skill</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I suggest that you consider continuing your argument along other lines.</p>
<p>Hmm really interesting way of putting the question. The answer of course is that it is not fair, any more than using someones gender as a factor. But many colleges are very keen to have a diverse population without any one gender or race or ??? over/under represented so these factors do come into play. We have a friend whose very smart daughter was accepted into a couple of Ivies but rejected by Dad's (Non Ivy) alma marter (I am sure that is spelt wrong and equally sure some kind soul will correct me so will save myself the time of going to look it up :) ). Dad was somewhat ticked and took a trip to find out why. Was told they had filled their 'quota' for caucasian females and asked did they have even a little bit of American Indian because then she could get in. They did not and daughter went elsewhere. The next year the school tried to get her to come as a transfer (Dad has money) but she was happy where she was.</p>
<p>WashDad,</p>
<p>
[quote]
- Looks (an obvious source of bias)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Athletic ability (why are athletic scholarships only available to good athletes?)</p></li>
<li><p>Intelligence (smart people, on average, have more opportunities, make more money, etc.)</p></li>
<li><p>Height</p></li>
<li><p>Musical talent</p></li>
<li><p>Math skills</p></li>
<li><p>Reading ability</p></li>
<li><p>Political beliefs (I didn't get a job offer once after my prospective manager started arguing politics with me over lunch at our last interview)</p></li>
<li><p>Writing skill
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Indeed. People, including myself, have perceptions as to what "looks good." We can change our diets and our fitness routines to shape the body we want, but that doesn't mean that what we get is "attractive" to everyone!</p>
<p>Sure, some people are born with the potential to be better athletes. If they train, they're likely to beat the people who have Puritan work ethic but lack the innate talent. Yet, these hard workers will beat the talents who don't train.</p>
<p>I play tennis, so I'll use that as an example. The sport in its modern form demands a tall athelete who can move well, hit with power AND variety, and can last for hours at a time. Marat Safin is built for the modern game. But, due to his work ethic and mental instability, he has never finished a season as the world's top ranked player. By contrast, Lleyton Hewitt, a player nearly half a foot shorter, has finished two seasons at the top of the sport. He did the best he could, and no one ever says that he didn't try hard enough. But, his best doesn't cut it for the current world number one, Roger Federer, who is also built for the modern game. Federer works as hard as Hewitt did when Hewitt was #1, which is why Federer hasn't let go of the #1 ranking for the past two years.</p>
<p>Same thing with intelligence. Sure, some people are born with the potential to be "smarter." That doesn't mean that the guy who never quits won't earn his fair share.</p>
<p>Same thing with musical talent.</p>
<p>Same thing with math skills.</p>
<p>Politics, eh, thanks for the heads up. I've got to make sure that I don't say any of what I'm saying here to an interviewer!</p>
<p>Same thing with writing skill.</p>
<p>The question should be, "Should factors that the student/applicant can't control be considered in admissions?"</p>
<p>A minor child can control only so much in his/her life. Things they do not control include where their parents will send them to high school, whether their parents will allow them to take a SAT prep test (or even take the SAT at all), whether they will ever get music lessons paid for, or be put on a non-high school sports team, whether they will get a tutor for subjects they struggle with, etc. The list goes on.</p>
<p>That is why it makes more sense for the admissions offices to consider EVERY factor that can be known about the student, to get the best picture of this student's potential in light of all their circumstances (including race).</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Of course my parents make some major decisions for me, some of which included the examples you have mentioned.</p>
<p>Yet, all of those examples CAN be controlled by someone.</p>
<p>By comparison, no one can control his race. It is inherently unfair to select for a characteristic of which no one can choose.</p>
<p>I'm sure all of us agree that it was morally wrong to deny blacks the right to vote in decades past. They were denied suffrage (a decision) because they were born a certain color.</p>
<p>How is making decisions of any sort while using race as even one of many factors different?</p>
<p>Athletics. For the vast portion of the world's population, it wouldn't matter how hard or long they trained, they would never play tennis at a competitive level. Look at the tens of thousands of high school boys in the US who literally risk their health working out to be successful at football and basketball. How many play at the top level in college? A few thousands at most. The difference is not how hard they work, it's a combination of their natural skills and their work effort. There IS such thing as athletic ability, and you CANNOT work your way into it. Rudy never played for the first string at Notre Dame, but he (according to legend) might have worked harder than anyone else on the team. He simply wasn't big enough or strong enough or fast enough to play Division 1 college football and no amount of heart would change that. Chances are that he might have played regularly in Division 3, where his work ethic would have mattered in a more modest talent pool, but there was no way he would ever have played Division 1.</p>
<p>A "guy who never quits" will earn his fair share, but a "quy who never quits" with an IQ of 150 will have a much better shot at earning a Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>I have two sons. Both took music lessons for several years. My younger son became a musician in less than a year -- the music always sounds like more when he played it. My older son became technically proficient, but he never played with the feeling of my younger son. Son #2 will always be more successful at music, because, as son #1 says, "I'm a technically competent piano player, but he's a musician. I will never be as good as him." The world is full of examples. </p>
<p>I'm going to stop this here to ask a question, are you seriously suggesting that all people have the same inherent potential? If so, I couldn't disagree more. A big part of youth is finding out what you're good at, and then pursuing that. Personally, for example, I've chosen a career that fits my inclinations and personality. I would never have been a brilliant physicist no matter how hard I worked. Trust me on this.</p>
<p>What about other factors that you can't control, i.e. where you go to school....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm going to stop this here to ask a question, are you seriously suggesting that all people have the same inherent potential?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, sorry if I did make it clear.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that some are born with the potential to be talented in certain areas. I also recognize that if these individuals appropriately pursue their talents, they can become unbelievably good at what they do. However, if they don't, then they are no better than the people who lacked the innate talent but never quit and kept on working.</p>
<p>Hence, your statement about the Nobel Prize supports what I have said.</p>
<p>So, Fabrizio - which tennis player equivalent student should get accepted to Ivy League U - Safin or Hewitt? Or both?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, Fabrizio - which tennis player equivalent student should get accepted to Ivy League U - Safin or Hewitt? Or both?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You misunderstood the point of my example. My point was that hard work goes a long way. Sometimes, it can even trump innate talent, assuming that the virtuoso had lousy work ethic.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing, although it is difficult, it is possible for someone to choose which school he goes to, or for someone else to choose for that person.</p>
<p>No one can choose his race. No one can have his race chosen for him.</p>
<p>If you think of race as simply skin color (and other physical characteristics that, as Fabrizio says, no one chooses), then it does seem unfair to use these as a factor in decisions like college admissions. But in the real world, race guarantees that you will have very different experiences of the world. Those different experiences, from which everyone gets educational benefits, are one of the main reasons that colleges seek a diverse student body: </p>
<p>it will be really different to study the civil rights movement with the insights of someone who has felt the effects of racism first hand in the room. </p>
<p>the kid who grew up in a Mexican community will see different things in a work of art than others might</p>
<p>even having a Tibetan Buddhist in your chem lab might cause you to think about how culturally bound Western ideas about sciences and knowledge are</p>
<p>. . . . and these are just dumb examples that get multiplied by the thousands of interactions that go on every day. In other words, race is just a rough surrogate to ensure a certain amount of diversity of experience.</p>
<p>Actually, Fabrizio - I understood your point. You're the one who seems to fail to grasp the significance of the example you yourself presented. A person can't control his height, and you say that a tennis player who is shorter has to work harder to achieve the same results as one who was born taller. So if it comes down to two tennis player/college applicants with identical results - but one was born six inches shorter than the other, who gets the nod? More realistically, if you have chosen the first 499 out of 500 admittees, and you have to choose between a player who's ranked 500 and is 6'6" and a player who is ranked 501 and is 5'8" who should you choose? </p>
<p>Neither can control his height, but one has seemingly done a lot with less of an inborn advantage - do you figure that applicant is the one you want for your college? Or do you pick another 6'6" player who's practically a clone of the first 499? All these debates over AA ignore the fact that we're not talking about dumping the easiest "yes" choices in the process, or elevating clear "nos." It's the "iffY' group that is where the shift in numbers will take place - Mr. 500 in my example, not the top seed.</p>
<p>The "race" issue is a very complex one, the importance of which cannot be based on a simplistic determination of whether it can be controlled or not.</p>
<p>MUST schools use race as a factor? No, but if they don't use it now, they will have a problem later. A public university that goes "race-blind" and ends up with few or no blacks or hispanics and almost all Asians is going to be sued and politically-pressured to come up with new admissions criteria that provide a more diverse result. Quality education for all, is the goal. Not just for a certain racial group that has figured out how to beat the system.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>I guess you're using tennis ability as a metaphor for stats.</p>
<p>I tell you, if I were the adcom, and I knew neither the race of applicant 500 nor the race of applicant 501, I would pick applicant 501 because to me, he had to work harder.</p>
<p>Notice that race played no role in my judgment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A public university that goes "race-blind" and ends up with few or no blacks or hispanics and almost all Asians is going to be sued and politically-pressured to come up with new admissions criteria that provide a more diverse result.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Our nation has had several natural experiments where public universities have abandoned racial preferences.</p>
<p>In no case has a university produced a student body that was 100% or anywhere near 100% Asian.</p>
<p>Actually I'm using tennis rankings as a metaphor for stats, and height for a metaphor for race. Your response assumes that height is not an apt metaphor for race. But no matter - you're still using a factor no one can control - their height - in your decision. Are you being unfair?</p>
<p>I'd like to know about those "experiments" you are referring to.</p>
<p>If you are talking about the UCs, I think you see that the problem I described IS happening. Berkeley, UCLA and UCI (I think they all have 40%+ Asians) are admitting rising numbers of Asian students every year, and have had a difficult time keeping the Black numbers up.</p>
<p>The UC Chancellors have been on the cutting edge of considering eliminating the SAT altogether, and it is because they do not think it gives everyone a fair shot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually I'm using tennis rankings as a metaphor for stats, and height for a metaphor for race. Your response assumes that height is not an apt metaphor for race. But no matter - you're still using a factor no one can control - their height - in your decision. Are you being unfair?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely. Of course I am being unfair to applicant 500. He is ranked higher, and I picked applicant 501 over him because I felt that due to his height disadvantage, he had to work harder to achieve a similar ranking. Unfair? You bet.</p>
<p>Now, at the risk of being ridiculous, height can be changed...</p>
<p>...but race can't be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd like to know about those "experiments" you are referring to.</p>
<p>If you are talking about the UCs, I think you see that the problem I described IS happening. Berkeley, UCLA and UCI (I think they all have 40%+ Asians) are admitting rising numbers of Asian students every year, and have had a difficult time keeping the Black numbers up.</p>
<p>The UC Chancellors have been on the cutting edge of considering eliminating the SAT altogether, and it is because they do not think it gives everyone a fair shot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<ol>
<li>The UC system does not use race as a factor.</li>
<li>Asians make up over 40% of the student body at a minimum of three campuses.</li>
</ol>
<p>It's really interesting. A system that does not use race as a factor is racist, but a system that uses race as a factor isn't.</p>
<p>If a campus where there are more minorities than whites isn't diverse for you, what about Texas-Austin?</p>
<p>There's a 1:1 ratio between Asians and Hispanics. Oh, and there are no racial preferences.</p>
<p>Florida doesn't use affirmative action. At UF, there are more Blacks than Asians, and there are more Hispanics than Asians. Why has this been ignored by those who believe that without racial preferences, "URMs" would have zero chance of admission?</p>