<p>I can’t speak to the immediate environs of Riverside, CA as a non-Californian. UC-Riverside conjures up nothing more than “oh, it’s one of the UC’s, that I guess is in a town called Riverside, whatever” - rather the same reaction that I suppose Peoria or Springfield, IL engender in Californians. But having said that, here’s my reaction to that: Knowing that California is a more-heavily-Asian-concentrated area, a school that is <em>that</em> heavily concentrated in Asian says to me “regional school.” It says to me that it draws disproportionately from its own back yard, and that to me is unappealing in a school. That doesn’t mean it’s not a good school, but it says that it has a distinctly concentrated “portfolio”. And that in and of itself is not appealing. </p>
<p>Brandeis and Tulane are 2 schools that have a very strong Jewish population. I’ve spoken with Catholic students considering those schools for other reasons but for whom too many Jewish students was problematic - not because they disliked Jewish kids or felt them “undesirable”, but because it was too concentrated for their taste. You’ve got to be comfortable with a strong Jewish presence to be comfortable at either of those schools. If you’re not - well, then you’re not. I don’t see the real difference here.</p>
Again, so what? So it’s a quota. They probably have a quota of people from Idaho, also. To me, that’s a lot more random than a quota that’s designed to ensure that URMs aren’t shut out.</p>
<p>If I (as the hypothetical Harvard adcom member here) feel that I HAVE to have representation from Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Utah because I want to say I have students from all 50 states, does that mean that I’ve imposed a “quota” on students from Massachusetts, New Jersey or California?</p>
<p>If I feel that I HAVE to have a student who plays an unusual instrument (let’s say the accordion), does that mean I’ve imposed a “quota” on students who play the piano or violin?</p>
<p>This subject will never end D: and question to the pro-AA people: If URMs are just as qualified, why have Affirmative Action in the first place?</p>
<p>So you’re telling me that it JUST SO HAPPENED TO BE that the “most interesting / compelling” "URM"s had SAT scores lower than the “most interesting / compelling” whites/Asians? What about the whites/Asians with SAT scores identical to the "URM"s? It’s a coincidence that they’re “[less] interesting / compelling” than their slightly higher scoring peers?</p>
<p>Since when was Bakke overturned? Quotas are illegal. If you want to me grudgingly accept that “diversity” is legal, I think it’s fair of me to ask that you accept that quotas are not.</p>
<p>As for “shut out,” go back to my oversimplified example. The lone “URM” was not any more “shut out” than the other fourteen applicants. They all had the same chances of getting a slot: 20%.</p>
<p>Are we assuming that in the absence of geographic preferences, at least one state’s students would not be represented? Because if you aren’t, then while there may be a quota, it would be an ineffective one; whether it exists does not affect the outcome.</p>
<p>That is NOT the case for racial preferences. You are arguing that without them, we may not have what we “want.”</p>
<p>woeishe gets my point perfectly. As far as I can tell, the answer appears to be, “We must have affirmative action to ensure that the outcome is ‘desirable’ because the ‘desirable’ outcome is ‘diverse’ and others are not.”</p>
<p>Quite possibly. But what would it matter, if you seriously adhere to your belief that it’s not SAT scores that should be the primary determiner of admissions?</p>
<p>See, this is where you unwittingly talk out of both sides of your mouth. If you truly believe in holistic admissions, then there’s no scandal, outrage or injustice if a 2200 student gets in and a 2400 student doesn’t. Similarly, there’s no scandal, outrage or injustice if a group of 2200 students get in and a group of 2400 students don’t.<br>
You keep saying you believe in holistic admissions, but then you keep saying that everyone’s SAT scores should be uniformly the highest possible and that a disparity in 2 groups’ scores is meaningful.</p>
<p>A little might be lost in this approach. Meaning, the White kid who is fluent in Chinese, the Vietnamese linebacker, the kid with the horribly awkward name who succeeded in spite of it, might be overlooked for their achievements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this is what the colleges want, the Court deferred to the colleges’ opinions that this is the most beneficial learning environment, and the Court held that the practice does not violate the Constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination.</p>
<p>Nice try. I figured you tried to pull this, but no dice.</p>
<p>Why aren’t more whites/Asians with scores identical to the "URM"s being admitted? If the "URM"s can do the work with score X, then a white/Asian with identical score X or even X-100 can also do the work. Why is it that we don’t see them in greater numbers at elite institutions?</p>
<p>It REALLY just so happens to be that "URM"s with score X are “interesting / compelling” but whites/Asians with score X aren’t? Really?</p>
<p>My position is consistent. If you’re going to argue that a “URM” with score X is no worse than a white/Asian with score X+200, then surely a white/Asian with score X is no worse than a white/Asian with score X+200. You have no reason a priori to assume that "URM"s with score X are “interesting/compelling” but whites/Asians with score X are not.</p>
<p>You didn’t trip me up. You tripped yourself up.</p>
<p>If true, this would make sense. They aren’t as qualified among X categories, so they wouldn’t make it, period, without racial preferences.</p>
<p>The argument Pizzagirl and epiphany espouse doesn’t make any sense. They’re as qualified and thus could make it, but because they aren’t GUARANTEED to make it, we need racial preferences. Wha?</p>
<p>Because of USNWR rankings. The elite colleges are forced to be cognizant of snagging enough high-scoring admits to keep them at the top. It is stupid.</p>
<p>Well, of course a white/Asian with score X is no worse than a white/Asian with score X+200. That’s kind of a big fat duh. </p>
<p>The only people who seem to think otherwise are the high school seniors who post that they got 2400’s and it’s “just not fair” that they didn’t get an engraved invitation from every single Ivy League school because they were “more deserving” than the kid across town who got a 2200 and got in. You know, the pouty whiners who refuse to listen to what colleges say time and time again - it’s not merely about the scores.</p>
<p>Why aren’t more whites/Asians with scores identical to the "URM"s being admitted? If the "URM"s can do the work with score X, then a white/Asian with identical score X or even X-100 can also do the work. Why is it that we don’t see them in greater numbers at elite institutions?</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>I love how you tricked to trick me by saying “I believe you” before attempting to unload a “I caught you talking out of both sides of your mouth” trap.</p>
<p>You assume that the current non-racial considerations are the correct ones to use to evaluate elite admissions, and we all accept them because this is what the elites use. Yet you do not also accept their decision to use race as a factor. Why?</p>
<p>There may be other factors that could be used to evaluate applicants and be indicative of college success that would put URMs on top that are not used.</p>
<p>I think this gets back to Hunt’s point. Hunt, as you will recall, believes in the value of diversity but thinks the “diversity argument” is a sham. To him, it is about social justice.</p>
<p>But there is no way you can create a black middle class through affirmative action if the program simply admits black middle class students whose SAT scores are probably higher than poor black students, and apparently, Bowen and Bok argued that affirmative action does create a black middle class, so I have straw manned no one.</p>