<p>“It points up the absurdity of a one-size fits all AA policy.”</p>
<p>I get that some would say THAT is what it points up. </p>
<p>But for some reason, I look at it and think, “and here WE are, going on and on about affirmative action…”</p>
<p>"I know a woman who had three children by three different men, of different races. One of the children would get AA and the other two would not. Despite having the same living conditions, same social conditions, same income, same schools, and on and on. "</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it depend on how they turned out? What if only one graduated high school? What if one applied to a CC,and one to a state uni? Isn’t that WAY more likely than all three being admitted to sselective schools? It would be where I live. It is not one size fits all around here, because going to a “selective” college is a pretty rare event. </p>
<p>I am sitting here in my office at county mental health, and thinking if just ONE of these kids goes to college there will be a parade!</p>
<p>No afirmative action at community colleges, which is were MOST kids go.</p>
<p>TatinG: Doesn’t it show that you look at race more than considering the quality of the application? Do you look at high achieving minorities and assume they needed a boost?</p>
<p>I am sure that folks thought my daughter got the boost. Those folks don’t give her credit for the 34 ACT, multiple 5s on APs, varsity athlete, and geographic diversity.</p>
<p>The problem isn’t AA. It’s the people who assume a URM can’t think and could only be admitted with a boost.</p>
<p>Well, you’re free to think that way. Just don’t be surprised if there’s another legal challenge to racial preferences that ends with yet another rebuke to the pro-racial preference side or better, overturning Grutter, for failing to cater to Justice Kennedy’s sensibilities.</p>
<p>I believe in treating all college applicants equally. No preferences should be based on skin color. If the three children of the same mother had similar class ranks, similar GPA and stats, etc. etc. that the skin color of one would give that child a boost in getting into college, turns our ideas of equal treatment for all races on its head.</p>
I think the problem’s AA along with the reality that people generalize. As long as AA exists with the practice of admitting people with lower stats simply because of their race, and it’s well known by others that they do, then others will tend to generalize and assume the person of that race was given leg up because of their race and otherwise may not have been admitted to the particular highly selective college. </p>
<p>It’s a downside of the AA practice and as long as AA is practiced the generalizations will be made - rightly or wrongly. I don’t imagine some of those who would be viewed favorably due to AA who wouldn’t have needed any kind of ‘leg-up’ since their attributes other than race make them very competetive enjoy the idea that many others are making these generalizations about them. It’s not fair to the individual but again, it’ll happen as long as AA is practiced in the form of lowering the stats bar for them (as opposed to the college actively seeking out particular targets who would have made it on stats regardless yet needed extra incentives/sweet-talking to accept the admission offer - a different type of AA).</p>
<p>I’m all for this kind of affirmative action. No preference is applied during the application review, but certain prospective students are actively and aggressively sought out and courted.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting. Since joining CC, I’ve certainly had my eyes opened, as well.</p>
<p>Ephiphany, I would like to think so, too. When my son and I visited Princeton and visited with his two (white) friends there (both have doctors as parents), we certainly didn’t get the sense that they saw anything in my son other than an amazingly high achieving young man and they both were very encouraging.</p>
<p>I also thought the bigger issue for my son to grapple with was overcoming the low expectations of a working class household such as ours or a working class/low achieving community such as ours. My son wrote an essay about that for some application or another. I never thought his race would even come into play. Guess I was wrong.</p>
<p>As for whether a school can be “too Jewish,” check out numerous discussions about Brandeis. I think BYU is “too Mormon” for most students–does that make me a bigot? Some schools are also “too Catholic.” And is UC Irvine “too Asian?” Well, what is the impact of having 49% Asian students? Does it discourage non-Asians from applying there? Does it discourage some Asians from applying there? You tell me.</p>
<p>
As I’ve said before, I don’t care about proportional representation between white and Asian students. I’m just not convinced that schools are really taking active steps to achieve it–I think there are other factors that can explain much, if not all, of the stats disparity between white and Asian kids at highly selective schools.</p>
<p>By “reasonable level,” I guess I mean “critical mass.” For black students, in particular, it really troubles me to see only a couple of percent when they make up such a significant percentage of the population. If it’s a quota if you try not to drop below some vaguely defined minimum, then OK. I buy into the sham.</p>
How can the generalizatons be made rightly? Shouldn’t everyone be considered as an individual?</p>
<p>
What “stats” are you talking about? Since these schools supposedly set their own holistic policies the only judge of what “stats” are preferred is the school itself. Schools routinely admit students with what seem like lower objective stats for whatever reason they deem fit - within the same racial group.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s possible (or at least consistent) to support racial preferences as currently practiced and also believe this. Bay, for example, argues that we are all representatives of our respective “races.” IMHO, such a view is wholly consistent with supporting racial preferences.</p>
<p>I know this is late, but I’m thinking the collegeboard website is off or Emory is lying. Emory reports the class of 2014 as having 33% Asian (and keep in mind that 8% did not report. Could be higher if it were mostly Asians not reporting. The year before had 31% w/11% not reporting). A gap even larger than expected. The 16% was about on target (they report 17%):
[Class</a> Profile | Emory College of Arts and Sciences Admission](<a href=“http://www.emory.edu/admission/admission/class_profile/index.html]Class”>Facts and Stats | Emory University | Atlanta GA)</p>
<p>Also, in general, we rank pretty closely to Vandy if not the same as our rank just recently declined some. Either way, it’s not a decline noticeable enough to change preferences among Asians. Now, one could question this: Considering that Vandy has an engineering school and thus, a broader array of STEM offerings, which would be looked upon as favorable by many Asian applicants/admitted prospective students, Why does Vandy have such a low percentage?</p>
<p>Unless you’re using my post to respond to somebody else’s point, you’re doing it again - making up things I did not say. My point here has to do with the correctness of applying generalized beliefs about a population to individuals. It has nothing to do with my opinion on affirmative action, which I suspect you would be extremely surprised to discover. </p>
<p>I am merely not obsessed with this issue when it comes to college admissions. Probably because we are talking about a tiny percentage of admittees to a tiny fraction of the universities in this country. And because I know you do not have to attend those universities to succeed in this country.</p>
<p>Edit:
After re-reading, I realize that I may very well have jumped to conclusions myself. I suppose it is possible you merely wanted to use my words in your post. Of course you could have done that yourself without dragging me into it.</p>
<p>Well, there’s not much I can say since you at least accepted that “critical mass” and “quota” are related except ask a question. Why is it that we tell Asians that they’ll do fine wherever they go, but "URM"s just HAVE to have a “critical mass” (read: quota) at elite institutions? Something tells me that it isn’t because Dale and Krueger found that "URM"s and poor students were the only groups for whom elite made a difference after controlling for innate characteristics.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, are you able to distinguish between these two ideas:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Going to a school that does not have at least some representation of every ethnic group / religion / race / etc. is undesirable; and</p></li>
<li><p>The (fill in the blank ethnics) are undesirable people to have around and their number should be limited accordingly?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>FWIW, BYU <em>is</em> too Mormon for me. Notre Dame <em>is</em> too Catholic for me. Wheaton College <em>is</em> too Christian for me. Spelman <em>is</em> too black for me. Heck, U of Illinois is too Illinois-centric for me. Does that make me bigoted against Mormons, Catholics, Christians, blacks or people-from-Illinois? Or do you just not get that people other than you do have preferences for schools that are deliberately structured to bring diversity?</p>
<p>You’re mixing up advice given to the individual student (you’ll do fine wherever you go) with the goals stated by the institution (we as XYZ College desire a critical mass of URM students to demonstrate our diversity commitment).</p>
<p>Do you agree or disagree that many Asians tend to over-concentrate on a few select schools in the belief that those schools and only those schools matter / count?</p>
<p>And to your point about critical mass - are Asians not applying in droves to the Grinnells and Macalesters and Vanderbilts of the world the way they are to HYPSM et al because a) they don’t believe there is a critical mass of students-like-them such that they would be uncomfortable or b) they’ve been told that HYPSM et al are the only schools that matter (certainly everyone knows them in Asia!) and the Grinnells, Macs and Vandys aren’t even worth considering?</p>