<p>As far as elite private institutions, I don’t believe I have ever read or heard anybody complaining about geographical diversity policies. Most people like the idea of thier kids going to school with kids from around the country, and I suspect since most peole don’t view this as having a significant impact on their child’s admisisons prospects, they don’t complain.</p>
<p>For public insitutions, where one might have some validl reason to complain, what i generally find is that people are very happy with out of state applicants funding the universities until it comes time for their kids to apply.</p>
<p>Irrelevant? Nice try, but let’s THINK about this, shall we?</p>
<p>Yes, you asserted that “whining” would still continue even if racial preferences were abolished. Others listed out-of-staters and illegal aliens as examples. I asked whether states that still practice racial preferences DO NOT have residents who “whine” about out-of-staters and illegal aliens. You attempted to de-legitimize my question by calling it irrelevant.</p>
<p>But in fact, it’s quite relevant. If states that still practice racial preferences have residents who “whine” about those other “groups” anyway, then racial preferences has NOTHING to do the additional “whining.” Whether you keep or abolish it, the extra “whining” persists.</p>
<p>Perhaps I don’t understand your point. What is it, exactly? Are you saying that if racial preferences were abolished, people will simply target another group? If that’s your point, it’s mistaken so long as what I asked is true. But maybe that wasn’t your point.</p>
<p>The point is that some people are just whiners.</p>
<p>And I certainly have seen people on CC complain that they were from New Jersey, or New York, and that this was to their disadvantage. I have seen people complain that it was unfair that colleges were looking at ECs to admit people with lower grades and scores. I have seen people complain that “great kids” with outstanding ECs were rejected while “featureless drones” with high scores and grades were admitted.</p>
<p>I continue to think that it’s particularly unseemly for kids with so many advantages to whine about black, Hispanic and Native American kids getting a break. It’s self-centered and whiny. I feel differently about the complaint that Asians may be disadvantaged vis-a-vis whites at some schools–that’s a valid concern, but my empathy is somewhat limited when a members of a group that are getting admitted at a rate four times their representation in the population is complaining about the admissions rates for URMs, which are still far below their representation in the population. If you could separate these two issues, you might find more sympathetic listeners.</p>
<p>I understood bovertine’s statement to imply a belief that “whining” is sequential: if we get rid of racial preferences, they’ll just move on to something else. But I think it’s CONCURRENT. They aren’t going to “whine” about racial preferences AND THEN out-of-staters. They’re likely “whine” about them at the same time.</p>
<p>So “they’ll just whine about something else” is not a reason to keep racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m opposed to both “affirmative” and “negative” action. Either way, it’s racial discrimination. That the former is “positive” racial discrimination doesn’t sway me one bit.</p>
<p>If it makes you feel better to phrase it this way, then fine. You read all sorts of things into my post which simply weren’t intended, nor implied as far as I’m concerned. I should have emphasized this -</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me add, however, that obviously it is sequential with respect to the focus of the whining. If you get rid of the racial preferences then the whining will not go away, it will simply shift focus to something else. I am convinced of that, and this has happened in California, partly because of policies on affirmative action, and partly because of policies brought about by economic conditions in the state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I’m certain there are instances of complaints about geographical diversity and every other admissions factor on here, it is nothing like the incessant complaining about race based preferences. I generally see multiple threads on this same subject every week., despite the fact that URMs are still very distinct minorites at these schools, and if one’s child got beat out for admissions it was much more likely due to some other white or Asian applicant.</p>
<p>And, although you (fabrizio) may have no personal “dog in the fight”, and are merely concerned with fairness, since I generally see these threads crop up after admissions season (typically posted by some kid who “only” got into a top 20 instead of Yale), I am fully convinced they are not motivated out of some sense of social justice, but purely out of self-interest.</p>
<p>Yes, but one has been upheld has lawful, and the other has not yet been proven.</p>
<p>Whining about affirmative action for URMs is like whining about the solo Prius driver who gets to use the carpool lane. Whether you think it is fair or not, the law has already determined that there is a societal benefit to the preferential treatment.</p>
<p>I would also note that this supposed big boost for black applicants has not succeeded in getting them anywhere near their representation in the overall population at any selective college that I’ve looked at (except Columbia). They make up about 13% of the population, and make up 7% or less of incoming students at all the Ivies (except Columbia, where they make up 14%). Asians, on the other hand, make up less than 5% of the US population, and make up at least 14% of the incoming students at every Ivy League School.</p>
<p>And for those who think this should be based on income, not race, OK. But note that the median income for Asians is the highest of any ethnic group, with a huge gap between Asians and blacks.</p>
<p>Then contrary to your claim, I did not misunderstand you. I disagree that “it is sequential with respect to the focus of the whining.” If that’s true, then we should see that states that continue to practice racial preferences DO NOT have residents clamoring against out-of-staters and illegal aliens. (Not so irrelevant now, is it?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So as long as someone has no sour grapes, he can legitimately criticize racial preferences without being called a “whiner”?</p>
Do we have to rehash this yet again? The existing studies provide some evidence that there may be this kind of of discrimination against Asians at some schools, but it’s far from proven. When we’ve discussed this before, some posters have simply rejected any other potential explanations for disparities in admissions, and have clung to some very limited study results. As I keep saying, though, you have a problem building up general outrage when you are arguing that a group should be getting admissions results at 6 or 8 times their representation in the population, rather than “only” three or four times.</p>
<p>Of course, that seems to be ignored (as long as no university actually comes says openly that they do it, as they did with limitations on applicants of undesired race or religion decades ago), probably because:</p>
<p>a. The anti-“affirmative action for URMs” people are (in the real world) mostly white, and probably fear that their representation in good universities would go down if the playing field were leveled between white and Asian applicants.</p>
<p>b. The pro-“affirmative action for URMs” people typically make arguments about “representation relative to the population”, which would make it hard to stay consistent if they said anything about the suspicions regarding affirmative action for white over Asian applicants.</p>
<p>No, but it is starting to get a bit fuzzy with age, and obviously it must be far from a slam-dunk case, considering no findings of unlawful discrimination have been released after what, 6 years of investigation.</p>
You just said you feel the same about both, didn’t you? In my opinion, what you should be doing is asking for more study, not claiming that it’s proven. But, yeah, I guess I do feel some disdain for the argument that people who are getting a lot should be getting even more.</p>
Are you being deliberately obtuse?<br>
My belief is that where there are various factors used as preferences, people seem to complain ** most ** about those that are race based. Not that they do not complain at all about other factors. I am not going to do a search, but I am confident that is true here on CC, with complaints about legacy probably coming in second.</p>
<p>Certainly, if they eliminate race based preferences entirely in a state, then the quantity and degree of complaints about those types of preferences will diminish in that state, and other complaints will predominate.</p>
<p>
Anybody can legitimately criticize any policy. Whether they are “whining” is a separate issue. Someone who incessantly complains about something merely because it affects them, then abandons those complaints when it is no longer relevant to them, is a whiner IMO, and worthy of disdain.</p>