<p>Hello my fellow Rice applicants</p>
<p>On the Rice signature page I noticed that it said "Rice is committed to affirmative action." But then in the next sentence it said "Rice does not discriminate on the bases of race...."</p>
<p>I'm confused. Isn't this a contradiction?</p>
<p>*basis, sorry i can't type</p>
<p>Haha.. I noticed the same thing when I signed the other day, and had the same question. It seems completely contradictory.</p>
<p>Maybe they don't consider affirmative action discrimination, but I don't think we should get into those matters...</p>
<p>ya i noticed that too. i think they're thinking affirmative action goes hand in hand with not discriminating. sorta. like. letting the blacks and mexicans in. and not discriminating. even though it's still discriminating against ORM's. but go to the stanford boards if you wanna get into that...</p>
<p>Rice is an affirmative action school in that they more aggressively recruit underrepresented minorities. However, they do not discriminate. These statements are not contradictory.</p>
<p>By "aggressively recruiting URMs", they ARE discriminating. By my definition of discrimination, saying "You have lower stats than this ORM, but you are URM, so we will accept you over the ORM" definitely counts. Hence, affirmative action involves discrimination.</p>
<p>It is faulty logic to presume that recruiting URM means lowering stats or standards. Rice looks at the whole person, not just stats whether URM or not. Aggressively recruiting just means they are going out to tell rice's story to some who might not otherwise consider Rice. Even though Rice does not use stats alone to decide admission, DD's friends of all groups, UR or not, have the same hight profiles. What would you bring to Rice besides stats?</p>
<p>singersmom07 are u saying that being URM is an actual quality that makes an applicant more qualified in what they will bring to the university, and hence does not constitute discrimination?</p>
<p>becuase I understand that logic, but I can hardly agree with it</p>
<p>and I think all colleges use a similar phrase on their apps</p>
<p>No I am saying it is really just a data point. There is no one in DD's college and friends who is "less qualified" than others and her freinds encompass all kinds of people. All have excelled at their HS and all have great HS stats but each has their own individual personality that goes beyond just stats, URM or not. You must show that part of you to Rice. Just your stats won't get you there, URM or not.</p>
<p>
They're not necessarily accepting people with lower stats; they're trying to get more URMs to apply so that they have a greater pool to draw from.</p>
<p>At least that's the stated policy. Practiced policy, as we all know, may be different.</p>
<p>It is practical common sense that choosing two exact "same" applicant based on race is discrimination; the one that is not chosen becuase of his/her race was discriminated against. Nevertheless affirmative action is very necessary for political and practical purposes. It doesn't mean its a bad or correct thing to do. It is just how society functions; gotta live with it.</p>
<p>
But there are never two applicants who are the "same". There are so many different factors that come in to play. Part of what Rice tries to do in filling its freshman class is having a group of students with a diverse sense of perspectives and backgrounds. They will take into account the context under which you accomplished everything that you did, including your background That's what affirmative action is, and it's not discrimination. Someone who accomplished slightly lower stats (since, as we know, stats mean EVERYTHING...) coming from a poverty-stricken Texas border town arguably achieved more than the valedictorian with the perfect stats from a suburb in the northeast.</p>
<p>I agree with NYSkins1. No two applicants are the same, because no two people are the same. They look at applicants within the context of their environment. This is because the valedictorian with perfect stats from a suburb may not have had to work nearly as hard as what the poverty-stricken student did. They want people who will thrive, and if one is accustomed to private tutoring and SAT classes, they will most likely have more trouble than someone who has had to work hard their whole life.</p>
<p>They also want diversity, which is where URM status comes in, because part of what universities have to offer is the learning that will happen outside of the classroom.</p>
<p>Sadly AA is more about race, not so much about socio-economic levels.</p>
<p>AA can make me angry at times; this year one kid (lower middle class/white) in my school wanted to go to Chicago EA. He was deferred, yet an much less qualified URM kid got in EA (both of her parents are practicing physician/surgeon, so you can't talk about how much disadvantage she was in); she doesn't even have her hearts set on Chicago, but rather on Duke and Yale.</p>
<p>Also; for all practical purposes; lets use two identical candidates as a hypothetical example. Under AA, the URM will get in, the other will not. A real world example may not exist, but you have to admit that this is how the AA system works, by taking away chances in order to give chances.</p>
<p>I agree with ^. AA should judge based on socioeconomic status, NOT RACE. These two, surprisingly enough, are not equivalent. African-American does not always mean poor and at a disadvantage, Caucasian does not always mean rich, Asian does not always mean smart.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference between "You had a hard life, I see that you worked hard though your stats aren't perfect" and "You are black, I assume you have worked hard though your stats aren't perfect"</p>
<p>Okay, so if two hypothetically identical (stats, EC's, socioeconomic level, etc.) were to apply to the same school, one URM, one ORM, the URM would most likely be accepted over the ORM, right?</p>
<p>I suppose that would be unfair for the ORM applicant, because he/she didn't choose to be ORM, but it's favorable for the university because it creates diversity. </p>
<p>We forget sometimes that the college admission process is less of a competition, which is what we would like to make it, and more of a choice that colleges must make.</p>
<p>I'm a URM and I'd like to think that my stats and essays, and NOT my URM status, are what got me in. I'm all for AA based on socioeconomic status, but not based on race. That kind of AA is an incentive to keep URMs stupid and lazy, because they know they don't have to work as hard as the asian kid to get somewhere in life.</p>
<p>Yep. I have a black friend who got a D in AP US History. When I asked him why he didn't care about it, he responded, "I'll get into college anyway. I'm black."</p>
<p>GRR.</p>
<p>Rice is following THE LAW.</p>
<p>Executive Order 11246, as amended, prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment. </p>
<p>Now, whether this should be the law or not is subject to debate. But the OP wondered about an apparent contradiction on the Rice application. This would explain that.
(For further info: BizSecure</a> : Equal Opportunity Employer)</p>