<p>I need a vacation...</p>
<p>"Diversity brings more points of view, and more points of view makes a richer <em>better</em> class discussion level. If you haven't ever had this, you might not miss it, but once you've had the experience, educational environments without it seem flat by comparison."</p>
<p>Are you saying that all members of a race or a socioeconomic group think similarly? That the minorities who take advantage of these provisions all think "The Poor Black Way" or "The Lower-Middle Class Asian Way" and define themselves entirely by their race and economic status? That they offer points of view that no one else can? No?</p>
<p>Then let's give advantages to those who are truly out of the norm and truly have something different to offer. Why don't we give advantage to Anarchists, Atheists, Satanists, and Neo-Nazis? Surely these groups would provide a more diverse and better-predicted point of view to a classroom discussion.</p>
<p>Wow, way to list atheists and Neo-Nazis in the same breath! </p>
<p>And, no this is not implying that all members of racial/socio-ec. groups think the same. What it means is certain people grow up with different experiences that they can add to the class. Does this mean that all lower class African Americans will have the same views because they grew up in a tough neighborhood? NO! It means that they will have different experiences from a rich upper class white kid who went to a prep school and thus, will sometimes have more to add on certain topics.</p>
<p>"Then let's give advantages to those who are truly out of the norm and truly have something different to offer. Why don't we give advantage to Anarchists, Atheists, Satanists, and Neo-Nazis? Surely these groups would provide a more diverse and better-predicted point of view to a classroom discussion"</p>
<p>WOW</p>
<p>emmasadie. Meet Trackstar. Trackstar, meet emmasadie.</p>
<p>Like I mentioned to trackstar, if you want to go to a college which pays little devotion to diversity, they certainly exist. But why do you find offensive those schools that see that it is a GOOD thing?</p>
<p>And if you follow rankings and that sort of thing, you'll see the overwhelming majority of those schools seek diversity. Hmmmmm... maybe they've got it all wrong?</p>
<p>Why are businesses spending millions to hire qualified workers from diverse backgrounds? To enhance their workforce, avoid blindspots, bring more illumination to serve differnent markets.</p>
<p>"Wow, way to list atheists and Neo-Nazis in the same breath!"</p>
<p>I'm an "Atheist", and while I don't agree with the views of Neo-Nazis, I don't see any reason for them to be arbitrarily silenced. I wasn't equating the two, but simply listing rarely-accepted political and religious beliefs, the expression of which I feel would contribute to a diverse society more so than simply the expression of one's views "based" on their socioeconomic standing or race.</p>
<p>
Heh...</p>
<p>Atheism is hardly rarely accepted. Unless you wear a shirt that says "God Is Dead" and yell at people for believing in God, (most) people could care less. Which is true of most religions/viewpoints don't flaunt them like an ass an you'll be fine. Which is why neo-nazis are ostracized, people don't feel like looking at swatizkas, nor hearing the holocaust denied. </p>
<p>"...views "based" on their socioeconomic standing or race."</p>
<p>Not s/e status and race, but experiences.</p>
<p>As another poster said, "Wow." Just, wow.</p>
<p>emmasadie wrote: "Then let's give advantages to those who are truly out of the norm and truly have something different to offer. Why don't we give advantage to Anarchists, Atheists, Satanists, and Neo-Nazis? Surely these groups would provide a more diverse and better-predicted point of view to a classroom discussion."</p>
<p>Just because one holds a unique perspective alone doesn't merit inclusion into the school's entering class. Now who decides that is open to debate. Frankly, if you could show me athiests, anarchists and Satanists who could come to a progressive institution of learning with the attitude to share with others and be open to self-reflection, then I would support that. As a matter of fact, if an interveiwee stated that they were one of those, I'd find it very interesting if he/she could convey why that belief is held. </p>
<p>Give me a high performing, academically hungry satanist/anarchist/athiest who can be a contributing part of the community, then I say that's a viable candidate. I'm sure many of my classmates were athiests. That was fine and they weren't "silenced". Can't say I knew any satanists. But show me the satanist or athiest with the 3.1GPA and 1750 SATS and it doesn't matter -- no to little chance at all.</p>
<p>(note I intentionally omitted the neo-nazi candidates)</p>
<p>Diversity does have a purpose but not to dillute the waters of rigorous exchange and intellectual pursuit by all.</p>
<p>I feel a need to contribute to this thread so here goes. </p>
<p>In 9th grade I attended a very average Joe high school in rural Illinois. It was the biggest in the area, and had about 1400 students; most of which were from low-income families. HOWEVER if you wanted to succeed academically there were good opportunities (there was no sharing of books and what-not). At the end of 9th grade I was ranked number #2 in a class of over 250. </p>
<p>Now, at the end of 10th grade, I moved out of the country and attended a very rich and preppy International School with some children of the richest families in the world (I'm talking about people who have private jets here) thanks to my father's company paying for the 16k a year tuition. There were only 30 kids in the WHOLE GRADE (usually about 10 per class--in Chemistry only 4). Even though there were only 30 people in the class, maintaining #1 status was really difficult because there were other very intelligent people. BUT these intelligent people where the children of parents who also were working for companies that paid for tuition. There seemed to be a general trend of those from poorer families=top in class and richest=bottom of the class. The richest people where going to live on "Daddy's credit card" and didn't have a care in the world. These so called "lucky people" were at a severe disadvantage academically due to the fact that they were blinded by the amount of money they had. At the same time, seeing all these people with 20 million dollar yachts made me want to work even harder so that I might some day achieve a certain measure of similar success. </p>
<p>Thus I came to the conclusion that it is just as difficult to be part in a mediocre HS as it is to be in a very preppy HS. In the large, mediocre HS there are so many people that it is bound to be difficult to be top of the class even though the majority of others are relatively weak academically. In the very preppy HS, there are always a few students whose parent(s) are EXPATs or value education very highly and are willing to pay such ridiculous amounts. These students then view the easy lifestyle of their peers and want to have similar success and thus work harder= lots of competition even in a small class. </p>
<p>However, I highly doubt the same principal holds true for EXTREMELY poor schools where even if you want to succeed you have almost 0 opportunity. I think that in such extraneous circumstance you should be given a boost over more qualified candidates in the eyes of the uni. adcoms. </p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>