<p>Oh goodness, can you IMAGINE the whining that would occur? “My spot at HYPSM was taken by a poor black person who didn’t have my SAT’s / GPA / EC, AND they are fronting him remedial help for a whole year so he can catch up to the ‘real’ students”? </p>
<p>As a (I’ll say it again, fabrizio), privileged upper middle class white woman with two privileged upper middle class students off to fancy-schmancy schools in the fall, I cannot possibly imagine wanting to trade the privilege I have with any black person in this country (I suppose besides Obama) for the mere fact of a boost in elite school admissions. I don’t have to worry about driving while white. I don’t have to worry that if I run to the grocery store looking unkempt, I’m reflecting on my entire race. I don’t have to worry that I’m seen as an “Oreo.”</p>
<p>poverty rate can be misinterpreted. to see if a person lives in poverty, they only look at income and not wealth. a person can have a mercedes benz but earns minimum wage and still count as living in poverty. few weeks ago there was a story about this guy who had $2 million but still collected food stamps because his income was low</p>
<p>I don’t think you can use the UCs as an example, because they don’t care anything about the content of an applicant’s character. They do not accept teacher or counselor recs.</p>
But that’s a subjective and difficult thing to capture anyway. Consider that anyone with the creds to be accepted to one of the top several UCs is already likely > 4.0, took the more/most demanding courses in HS, has decent ECs, high SATs, etc. and certainly could provide good character references if the college accepted them. Since virtually every applicant could end up providing good character references then that aspect is almost taken out of the equation. Maybe this is one reason why they don’t bother with them (plus the logistical issues due to the sheer number of applicants).</p>
<p>Good for you. But you know, if the injustice offends you so much, why don’t you donate part of your salary to UNCF, if you don’t already do that? There are ways you can address injustice that don’t require expressing dismay/shock whenever others don’t see the world the way you do.</p>
<p>And for the 101st time, just in case I didn’t get my point across, I d not support “numbers only” admissions.</p>
<p>Well, fabrizio, do you support consideration of state of origin to get geographical diversity? Does it matter whether or not that would disadvantage some ethnic groups? If you don’t have numbers only admissions, there’s a pretty slippery slope.</p>
<p>"Remember the man who created the Caucasian only scholarship? Yea, it was as if he brought back slavery. I remember reading that entire thread, and it was a pure outrage. "</p>
<p>I’m fine with geographic preferences. The civil rights initiatives Connerly espouses do not forbid public universities from employing such preferences in their quests for “diversity.” (They may even get real diversity as a result of them.)</p>
<p>I don’t see how geographic preferences would, in practice, “disadvantage some ethnic groups.” Lowell tried that in the 1930s and he ended up getting Jews from Western states. I reiterate that the only thing that curbed the Jewish population at Harvard was redefining merit via “holistic” admissions. Everything else failed.</p>
<p>So you’d be ok if a college decided to privilege highly those applicants who lived in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - even if in doing so, it lowered the Asian admittance rate since a vanishing few # of applicants from those states would be Asian?</p>
<p>Since the Asian American population tends to be concentrated in certain major metro areas that tend to produce a lot of applicants to highly selective schools, a geographic preference that favors those from other areas, or those from rural areas, may reduced the number of Asian American applicants accepted (even if that was not the intent of such a policy).</p>
<p>Keyword: Even if not the intent. Don’t you see the difference, Fabrizio, between “we want to cap the Jewish students at 15%” and “we want to help some students, even though in doing so, it will inadvertently affect others”? If you cannot see the difference between having ill intent and a cap, and not having ill intent and no cap, there is really no point in having this discussion.</p>
<p>A few inherent problems with racial discrimination in admissions depending on the ‘intent’ of the discrimination - </p>
<ul>
<li><p>If the intent is to make the racial makeup of the college mirror that of the ‘general population’ then there needs to be a definition of the ‘general area’ - i.e. city, county, state, country, world. Races aren’t distributed evenly across the USA (ex: blacks, Asians, Hispanic, etc.) so that can be an issue depending on what they’re trying to achieve and how others look at it.</p></li>
<li><p>If the intent is to provide opportunity for the disadvantaged then they need to look beyond skin tone at other attributes more telling - ex: 1st gen to college, socio-economic level of the family, etc. since to try to achieve this along racial lines will simply be inaccurate and is looking at it with a lot of stereotypical generalizations, many of which simply don’t apply.</p></li>
<li><p>If the intent is to correct past injustices (i.e. slavery in the USA) then the colleges need to look at more than skin tone so they don’t end up with people that don’t fit the category.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>But if the intent of the college is to admit the most likely to succeed then it should not consider race at all but should consider academic achievements, ECs, other achievements, and probably some other socio-economic attributes that may have caused the pure numbers to be lower than they would be otherwise (ex: kid did quite well in school but also had to work 30 hrs/wk to support the family so maybe the grades weren’t quite as tippy-top as the kid who went to the expensive private, was tutored beyond that, participated in enrichment activities, and never had to work, take care of siblings, or avoid gangs).</p>
<p>I have REPEATEDLY stated that I would oppose racial preferences even if it meant fewer Asians would be admitted. That’s the long answer to your question. The short answer is “yes, I’d be OK.”</p>
<p>But what makes you think it would lower the Asian admittance rate? Lowell tried that with Jews in the 1930s, and he failed spectacularly.</p>
<p>I just read that nationally only 40% of African-American college students finish in 6 years. I wonder how many of the AA admits leave elite colleges after a few years because they are not up to the rigors of the coursework. They may have done just fine at a less challenging university. Admitting someone who doesn’t have the educational background to do the work isn’t really doing them any favors.</p>
<p>ucladad,
None of your “intent” options passed muster with the US Supreme Ct. The only lawful reason for using race as a factor in admissions is to create a racially diverse student body, because the court found a benefit to learning in such an environment. (Socio-economic status is irrelevant.)</p>
<p>Again, Lowell tried this with Jews in the 1930s. He thought geographic preferences for students living in Western states would curb the Jewish population at Harvard. He was wrong; he ended up getting Jewish students from Western states. What makes you think it would work for Asians?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the difference, fundamentally? Either way you’re discriminating on the basis of race. Is sugarcoating it in language like “we want to help some students…” supposed to make me forget that it’s racial discrimination? “Positive” racial discrimination is still discrimination, whether the “intentions” are benign.</p>
<p>We see the world differently. You speak out against “negative” discrimination but staunchly defend “positive” discrimination. I speak out against both.</p>