<p>Most minorities going to top schools are not affluent, contrsry to popular belief,groovinhard.</p>
<p>^^^
They are not poor either.</p>
<p>From the article linked above:</p>
<p>"In a 2004 interview Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard, told the London Observer, “The black kids who come to Harvard or Yale are middle class. Nobody else gets through.”"</p>
<p>"What about the academically strong black students from low-income families? Where are they going to college? Some indeed make their way to elite private institutions. But it is likely that the majority are being snapped up by academically strong and selective state universities."</p>
<p>Me:</p>
<p>It should be noted that "middle class" is not affluent. Not being poor (i.e. middle class) does not mean that a student can afford to attend a place like Harvard without assistance. </p>
<p>The difficultiy in finding, and keeping, disadvantaged youth at a place like Harvard is twofold: one, because standards are NOT lowered, it's much more difficult for someone coming from poverty and a subpar education to excel enough to qualify for admission; two, without a diverse campus to begin with, a bright minority student who identifies strongly with his culture is likely to feel uncomfortable and therefore will not attend a school that is historically known as being a bastion of wealth and white male supremacy. These facts made it all the more critical for an elite university to identify, accept, and support minority students, particularly those from a disadvantaged background but also those who are not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These facts made it all the more critical for an elite university to identify, accept, and support minority students, particularly those from a disadvantaged background but also those who are not.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Are these minority students you speak of entitled to such special treatment?</p></li>
<li><p>Should other students be treated in the same way?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>It is my opinion that since each individual is unique, he will have a different perspective on life regardless of his race.</p>
<p>Thus, I believe that your institution does not need to use a policy – affirmative action – to try to create a community of learners with different viewpoints. It should happen automatically.</p>
<p>To compensate for past and current discrimination, there should be a policy that explicitly forbids discrimination against any individual on the basis of his race, color, creed, religion, national origin, or ethnic affiliation. To my knowledge, such a policy exists. However, this policy should be taken one step further with the words “No one is to be discriminated for on the basis of said factors.”</p>
<p>
[quote]
if we are practicing "racial preferences," well then, I guess white kids are actually benefitting, since they are overwhelmingly predominant in elite colleges and universities. and considering the vast majority of faculty members in this country are white men, i guess we are preferring them, too, in our hiring practices. and considering black students don't even come close to being equally represented in our colleges and universities when compared to their representation in the American population, i guess we are actually NOT preferring them. oh, and same with hispanic students. and southeast asian-american students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s true. Or maybe there are simply more qualified White students than students from “under-represented” minority groups at this very moment. Maybe current affirmative action policy doesn’t do anything to “level the playing field.”</p>
<p>Just remember. Drs. Bowen and Bok admitted that without affirmative action, “under-represented” enrollment would drop precipitously. Yes, yes, I know, they tried to defend the merits of the policy, blah, blah, blah. Page 51 – no racial preference = limited enrollment.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, you really need to get off the racial preference jag. Didn't I say earlier in my post that the problem is finding qualified URMs? </p>
<p>You keep saying that colleges "prefer" URMs over Asians and whites when the percentages of students on campus don't bear that out. </p>
<p>All the students ARE treated in the same way: if you are a first generation college student, that is taken into consideration. If you start your own business, that is taken into consideration. If you had few educational opportunities available to you, that is taken into consideration. However, you still need great grades and interesting ECs to get into an elite school. How many times does AdOfficer have to tell you this? Race does not determine acceptances; diversity does - and I don't mean this in a purely ethnic/socioeconomic way. The aim of elite private colleges is to assemble the most interesting, the most intellectually promising class possible. If this means ensuring that certain ethnic/racial groups are included on campus, then it will SEEM to outsiders such as you that a preference was made. However, the truth is that these are UNDER-REPRESENTED minorities. You cannot be an URM and also be preferred.</p>
<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>
<p>And, just how are you going to find qualified "under-represented" minorities?</p>
<p>If your plan is to create educational opportunities (e.g. more challenging coursework such as AP or IB) and encourage them to take advantage of such opportunities, then we have NO disagreement. I'm all for that.</p>
<p>If your plan is to use race as a factor and assume that, "This guy is Black, therefore he must have a different perspective of life, irrespective of where he lives, what he likes to do, and what he wants to do," then we have serious disagreements. I don't support that at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You keep saying that colleges "prefer" URMs over Asians and whites when the percentages of students on campus don't bear that out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Drop racial preferences and you'll see exactly what happens - the numbers change like crazy. Depending on who the author of the study is and what level of education is being studied (i.e. under or post graduate), the winners from race-neutral admissions are either Whites or Asians. Their numbers are being suppressed in the name of "diversity" and "inclusion."</p>
<p>However, the truth is that these are UNDER-REPRESENTED minorities. You cannot be an URM and also be preferred.</p>
<p>If "under-represented" means "there aren't many of them HERE on campus," then yes - that's true.</p>
<p>If "under-represented" means "there aren't many of them here once we compare their percentages to their percentages in the state / nation," then yes - that's also true, but such a definition tacitly supports quotas.</p>
<p>You can't be an "under-represented" minority and also be preferred? Um...does this mean you're finally going to stop using the term diversity?</p>
<p>
[quote]
To compensate for past and current discrimination, there should be a policy that explicitly forbids discrimination against any individual on the basis of his race, color, creed, religion, national origin, or ethnic affiliation. To my knowledge, such a policy exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know why that doesn't work? Discrimination today isn't done explicitly. Its implicit, its the little stuff, snap judgements that are made. Very few people are walking around going "damn, I hate black people." Most racist people have no idea that they are.</p>
<p>"california's definitions are their own, btw"</p>
<p>OK, let us use U.S. Census bureau definition:</p>
<p>Persons of Hispanic origin, in particular, were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. It should be noted that persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.</p>
<p>Systematic poverty can be linked to race, yes, but if you disregard race, systematic poverty can be linked to the disintegration of the family. </p>
<p>In cultures where families with absentee fathers are the norm, there will be poverty. This crosses all races. If a culture accepts this, it will continue and the poverty breeds into one generation after another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know why that doesn't work? Discrimination today isn't done explicitly. Its implicit, its the little stuff, snap judgements that are made. Very few people are walking around going "damn, I hate black people." Most racist people have no idea that they are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Discrimination today is both implicit and explicit. It may be more implicit today than it was a century ago, but that does not mean that explicit discrimination no longer exists.</p>
<p>I have forgot to check on this thread so I have missed a few posts.</p>
<p>First of all, the article posted about Black Hispanics etc is very interesting and shows a reality where people are choosing to identify themselves by their culture rather than race. </p>
<p>As i keep repeating in my posts, the point that many people here are missing is the fact that "Hispanic" is an ethnic label, not a racial one. Therefore it is able to have Hispanics of different races. There can be White Hispanics or Black Hispanics etc, or the type that the US population is more used to, Brown Hispanics (think Mexicans).</p>
<p>What I said earlier that I was White, what I meant is that my skin color was White just like any other Caucasian, I dont know if that makes my race be "White" though. When I am asked my race, I just answer Hispanic, even though its the wrong answer but I want to identify with my culture because at the end what is race other than skin color? What shapes a human being is its culture.</p>
<p>"If your plan is to create educational opportunities (e.g. more challenging coursework such as AP or IB) and encourage them to take advantage of such opportunities, then we have NO disagreement. I'm all for that."</p>
<p>Fabrizio, to say that AP and IB classes are the major "qualifiers" to admission at the elite universities is wrong. As AdOfficer has stated many times, universities look for the individual who takes FULL advantage of the educational opportunities available to him, whether that means taking 11 AP classes or graduating as one of the top 3 in an inner city high school that doesn't offer any. </p>
<p>While I agree that educational opportunities should be more equal the secondard level and below, it just isn't going to happen. This is not a new problem, and people have not been ignoring it. Many different strategies have been employed, with none of them working as completely as hoped and some even failing outright. Money and its allocation is but one side of the problem. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, while trying to do what you advocate, has not worked, either.</p>
<p>You continue to assume the URMs who are admitted with lower SAT scores are "less qualified." I have told you that my position as a professor has shown me that this is <em>absolutely not true</em>. While lower SATs might accompany many URMs, they still excel, along with their higher SAT scoring peers, at the same level of proficiency. Universities simply must use different metrics to evaluate them - and this use of an alternate means of gauging potential success is not limited to URMs. Some applicants don't test well. If a top 10 student scores a 2100 on the SAT but shows that she has a passion for, say, geology as evident in published papers, high level research, and letters of recommendation, then a school like Princeton might admit her despite a less than perfect record. The metric shifts away from standardized tests and into the real world accomplishments of that individual.</p>
<p>Blacks are not admitted simply because they are black. They are admitted because other factors in their file have indicated that they can do the work and compete with their peers of all races. </p>
<p>You said, "If your plan is to use race as a factor and assume that, "This guy is Black, therefore he must have a different perspective of life, irrespective of where he lives, what he likes to do, and what he wants to do," then we have serious disagreements. I don't support that at all."</p>
<p>No one advocates admitting URMs just because they are URMs. And it does NOT happen this way. However, if universities such as Princeton did not take into account a diversity of experience and perspective, they would become regional schools. Most of Princeton's student body would come from NJ and NY. The gender balance would tip toward being mostly female. There might be a capella groups but no marching band. Molecular biology majors but no French majors. The institution would lose its long-standing reputation as being a place of excellence for a wide variety of students.</p>
<p>I know you said that you advocate a diversity of interests, but that you want race taken out of that equation. The problem is, our heritage defines each of us, as does our cultural and socioeconomic milieu. Of course, it does not define us completely, but it does change what we bring into the academic environment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Discrimination today is both implicit and explicit. It may be more implicit today than it was a century ago, but that does not mean that explicit discrimination no longer exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not what I meant. Both forms exist in large quantities in today's society.</p>
<p>My comment was how you were saying the way to correct this was to ban racial discrimination, that is to say explicit racism. I'm saying that doesn't really fix the enormous problem of implicit racism which clearly needs to be corrected for in another way. Perhaps affirmative action?</p>
<p>I did not say that AP and IB are the major qualifiers for elite admissions. I presented them as an example of "educational opportunities."</p>
<p>The classes can prepare students for college classwork. Hence, I'd support any program that sought to increase opportunities for students to get better prepared. Students here refers to all races.</p>
<p>To my knowledge, No Child Left Behind does not seek to increase the number of AP and IB course offerings at schools with few of either.</p>
<p>Old data from various universities showed that "under-represented" minorities had the highest admit rates while having the lowest SAT scores. Princeton's Media Relations Manager, Ms. Cass Cliatt, went on record as stating that Princeton will release current admissions statistics if public demand is sufficient. When a group of students e-mailed her, she promptly responded that Princeton would never release such information as it would invariably suggest that Princeton admits by group, which she was quick to deny.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While lower SATs might accompany many URMs, they still excel, along with their higher SAT scoring peers, at the same level of proficiency
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dr. Nieli points out that when "under-represented" minority students of score X are matched with their White and Asian counterparts, also with score X, the "under-represented" minority students have the lowest GPAs on average.</p>
<p>It's clear to me that a student with published papers and research while still in high school is qualified to attend an elite university. Besides, under your example, her SAT score still places her in the middle 50% of most (all?) Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>As many qualified students as there are in New England, I do not believe that under race-blind admissions, Ivy League schools would become predominantly regional.</p>
<p>Just_Browsing,</p>
<p>Exactly. Therefore, depending on the location, it is not surprising to hear a White male say, "Those Black people, they always [negative stereotype here]" in a quiet part of a public area.</p>
<p>How does using race as a factor control implicit racism? Asian students have already been typecast as quiet, shy, hardworking students who like (or as one parent here eloquently puts it, are forced to like) math and science. Now, is the student who does not conform to this model "unique" or "just trying to be different?"</p>
<p>It doesn't control, it works as an adjustment. College admissions officers know that racism, both implicit and explicit, have serious negative impacts on people. Using race simply acknowledges that the negative impact exists in society and that is something that should be considered when reviewing an application.</p>
<p>Furthermore, while explicit racism can't really be "cured," as most explict racists have no desire to be cured of their problem, implicit racism can be "cured" in the sense that it can be revealed through exposure to people of other races (need for diversity perhaps?).</p>
<p>Just_Browsing,</p>
<p>We can acknowledge the negative impacts of discrimination without using race to "compensate" or "adjust."</p>
<p>It's my opinion - no research, no studies, nothing - that the implicit racism you speak of cannot be cured during the teenage years. It's already too late. Exposure to different races should happen much, much earlier.</p>
<p>It's easier to change the ideas of a five-year old than it is to change the ideas of a fifteen-year old.</p>
<p>So then you support the use of race in assigning people to schools in K-12 education? Good to know that you aren't entirely off!</p>
<p>Also, how do you adjust for the negative impacts of discrimination without looking at race?</p>
<p>Also, from personal experience I can say that your theory doesn't hold water.</p>
<p>I didn't realize my racial biases until I was 16.</p>