Asian or Not?

Applying to College
101

<p>If you include socioeconomic status, then you have to include race too because poverty DOES discriminate. That's why around 1/3 of black families are below the poverty line. & it doesn't help that their are more black men in prison then in college. If you acknowledge that socioeconomic status is a disadvantage that needs to be compensated for, then you have to acknowledge that certain races have current disadvantages that need to be compensated for. </p>

<p>The race box wasn't made to discriminate against asians, or against anybody. That's just the talk of very self-centered people that can't see things outside of how it affects them. It was made to allow colleges that believe in equal representation achieve it. And my argument this whole time is not whether or not i favor that way of conducting things, just that any university is JUSTIFIED in doing so, and you shouldn't complain about it. </p>

<p>Once again, if you are so adamantly opposed to equal representation then don't apply to schools that have a race box. The world doesn't revolve around you and just because Harvard, or anywhere, has a race box and you want to go there doesn't mean that they should have to change their goals for you. </p>

<p>And yes, when i typed up those percentages i was just going quickly, i dont intend on designing a comprehensive equal opportunities program.</p>

<p>Allorion, i'm sorry but i didn't even understand most of the first half of your post. </p>

<p>But to the second half: I always think it's funny when people say that if their is equal representation, you won't help disadvantaged groups. That's just BS. Their simply aren't enough privileged urms to fill up every college. And in combination with seeking socioeconomic diversity, underprivileged urms would be very heavily recruited. So does that mean that maybe a little over 50% of those urms at top tier colleges will be from the privileged category? yes.
But across the board the percent of urms would increase and especially in 2nd tier schools leading to an appreciation and further pursuit of higher education by those groups. </p>

<p>That's why i support equal representation in schools.</p>

<p>but regardless of that, all universities are still JUSTIFIED in seeking equal representation. Do you agree that they are justified?</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
So does that mean that maybe a little over 50% of those urms at top tier colleges will be from the privileged category? yes.
But across the board the percent of urms would increase and especially in 2nd tier schools leading to an appreciation and further pursuit of higher education by those groups.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that socioeconomic based AA would still lead to colleges heavily recruiting underprivileged URMs. But can you clarify what you meant by the statement I quoted above? If AA were socioeconomic instead of race based, then wouldn't privileged URMs not be getting any sort of advantage?</p>

103

<p>b@r!um,</p>

<p>
[quote]

Fabrizio, I am curious about your opinion on historically black and women's colleges. If you don't mind those institutions, why can a historically black college choose to remain mostly black by effectively limiting the non-black enrollment to 5 or 15 or 40% but Harvard cannot limit Asian enrollment to 30%? Just because it's Harvard as opposed to Lincoln University?</p>

<p>100 need-blind unis are quite a lot but only 5% of 2000 4-year colleges. And even those don't always guarantee to meet your full demonstrated need...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was unaware that Historically Black Colleges limit non-Black enrollment in such a manner.</p>

<p>I have always thought that these schools remain mostly Black by applicant self-selection, that is, non-Black students are generally not interested in these schools, despite their open proclamation that they are open to all students. The way to answer this is to figure out how many non-Black applicants there are to HBCs every year. </p>

<p>I hope you're not justifying a quota on Asian enrollment, or the enrollment of any group, by the way. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.</p>

104

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>Poverty does not discriminate. There are poor persons of every race in our nation.</p>

<p>I do not like how the racial preference defenders switch between socioeconomics and race as the reason behind their support for preferential treatment.</p>

<p>On the one hand, race boxes are necessary because some students can't afford expensive test preparation. Some students don't have access to competent guidance counselors. Some students are too poor to do extracurriculars; they have to work to supplement their family's income.</p>

<p>Yet, when socioeconomic affirmative action is offered as a compromise to the race box, the defenders switch their arguments.</p>

<p>All of a sudden, it's because of past discrimination that an "under-represented" minority can't afford SAT tutoring. It's because of current discrimination that an "under-represented" minority can't reach an advisor. It's because of our society's racism that said student must work to help his family out. Thus, race boxes are necessary. I, of course, do not buy such an argument. I recognize that our country has grossly mistreated some of our citizens for being of a different skin color. At the same time, I do not believe that lowering standards helps them in the long run. It's a historical irony that the socialists have decided that only through consciously looking at their skin color can we become less racist.</p>

<p>
[quote]

That's just the talk of very self-centered people that can't see things outside of how it affects them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm self-centered for wanting to prevent discrimination against Asians and all groups in general? Hmm, you know back in the day, people like Dr. King were called "self-centered" and were accused of having a "sense of entitlement," too. I'm not comparing myself to him, just placing things in perspective.</p>

<p>And, yes, Tyler, I am adamantly opposed to "equal representation" no matter how you define it.</p>

<p>It reduces freedom. I do not expect you to understand this; the socialist definition of freedom is a farce compared to the liberal definition. By calling for quotas on groups, or "relative proportions" as you call them, you're denying opportunities to students, not promoting them. You're punishing students who want to attend certain schools but can't because they already approximate the "diversity" of the surroundings.</p>

<p>Seriously, are you the son of two former members of Weather Underground? It puzzles me how a someone of your age is so attracted to socialist thought.</p>

<p>You don't spread freedom by imposing quotas on people. Even the old guard of racial preference defenders has abandoned their support for quotas. Like I said, if you really believe quotas are the way to go, study hard and attend law school so you can argue the merits of quotas before the Supreme Court. Just be sure you do it before Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy move our nation one step forward.</p>

105

<p>nobodies imposing a quota on anybody, that's where you're misled.</p>

106

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I said By calling for quotas on groups, or *"relative proportions" as you call them*, you're denying opportunities to students, not promoting them.</p>

107

<p>"You don't spread freedom by imposing quotas on people."</p>

<p>nobody is imposing quotas on anybody. In fact, it is the supreme court that's imposing laws on the universities, even though they don't want them.</p>

<p>And you are promoting opportunities for urm students. and you're not denying them to anybody, thats the sense of entitlement speaking.</p>

108

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]

And you are promoting opportunities for urm students. and you're not denying them to anybody, thats the sense of entitlement speaking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wha?</p>

<p>Yes, the policies I support indeed promote opportunities for "under-represented" minorities.</p>

<p>Yes, the policies I support indeed deny opportunities to no one.</p>

<p>No, I do not have a sense of entitlement. I do not see how you drew your conclusion.</p>

109

<p>I was saying you as in those who support equal representation and opportunities.</p>

<p>how does your policy promote opportunities for urms?</p>

<p>-and i'm not talking some bogus story about those lawyers from that widely criticized study; i really want to know.</p>

110

<p>When someone wants to change something inherent about themselves given at birth--to wipe out traces of their ancestry, to remove millions of years of genealogy from himself--in order to be treated as everyone else is treated, there is something terribly wrong with the system.</p>

111

<p>there are always going to be people who would deny their identity to get into a specific university. I personally think that the box should just ask for what kind of urm you are, whites and asians wouldnt be treated any differently. </p>

<p>But what i don't understand is that for those who so strongly oppose equal representation, why do you apply to schools that practice it?</p>

112

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]

how does your policy promote opportunities for urms?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You need only see what happened in California. Unlike U-Michigan, UC understood that there was no way racial preferences could ever be reinstated.</p>

<p>So, instead of whining about all that could have been, they did something.</p>

<p>They sent teachers out into disadvantaged school districts with the intention of giving these students adequate preparation for a fair shot.</p>

<p>They strengthened their outreach programs to include all students. They sent a clear message - "Not only are you capable of reaching high standards, you must reach them if you are to succeed."</p>

<p>And, according to Jay Matthews, they even created schools for disadvantaged students. These schools required excellence, and the students delivered ("Why AP and IB Schools Soar," Washington Post, May 22).</p>

<p>The policies I support in this matter promote opportunities for all students, including those labeled "under-represented."</p>

<p>You ask "why do you apply to schools that practice it ['equal representation']?</p>

<p>Tyler, I applied to only one university that made its commitment to diversity a big emphasis, and it was a public university at that. I applied to a LAC in the South and discovered first hand that there are a lot of great schools out there if you just take the time to look and check them out. (LACs, particularly ones in the South and Midwest, are trying to recruit more Asian students.) I applied to two other public universities. Their Common Data Sets show that they do not consider race in admissions.</p>

<p>So, I applied to four schools that didn't follow your socialist mantra of "equal representation."</p>

113

<p>sorry i haven't read this thread besides the first few posts, but racial considerations in college admission are so retarded</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
Allorion, i'm sorry but i didn't even understand most of the first half of your post.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bluntly enough, I'm simply pointing out the similarities between your argument and those of acknowledged racists.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you are one, but I'm trying to demonstrate how your system can be used to promote inequality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But to the second half: I always think it's funny when people say that if their is equal representation, you won't help disadvantaged groups. That's just BS. Their simply aren't enough privileged urms to fill up every college. And in combination with seeking socioeconomic diversity, underprivileged urms would be very heavily recruited. So does that mean that maybe a little over 50% of those urms at top tier colleges will be from the privileged category? yes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are, of course, absolutely right. If there's equal representation, then it will help them.</p>

<p>My point is that your proposed system is NOT equal representation. The entire basis of your argument is that it is equal representation. My last post was devoted to pointing out why this system is NOT equal representation.</p>

<p>Again, I've said it over and over again--I'm not opposed to affirmative action/"recruitment of underprivileged urms", as long as it does what it's supposed to.</p>

<p>Traditionally, even when schools practiced exactly what you say now, the "equalizing" effect quickly dropped off with the initial group getting into higher education purely because so few minorities were in higher education then. After that, it was primarily legacies and those who had "made it" in the first few waves of access to higher education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But across the board the percent of urms would increase and especially in 2nd tier schools leading to an appreciation and further pursuit of higher education by those groups.</p>

<p>That's why i support equal representation in schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You would make a good politician. You already have the "argue the proposal then insert a sentence of high rhetoric" down--it even sounds rather like a political sound-bite. "That's why I support equal representation in schools."
<em>chuckle</em> It isn't a specific attack upon you--I'm just personally amused by it.</p>

<p>The problem is that, for one, it hasn't historically worked--students haven't gotten to higher education in the first place, as they haven't made it through secondary education in the first place. Another problem is that you are making the assumption that it'll be a continuous virtuous cycle that equalizes the playing field for everyone, when it has been demonstrated in the past that upon hitting saturation, the equalization ends.</p>

<p>Unless you're willing to go FAR over the "representative" number of individuals per race, you won't get total equalization.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but regardless of that, all universities are still JUSTIFIED in seeking equal representation. Do you agree that they are justified?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are also justified in seeking only students who can pay, and dismantling the whole "need-based aid" too, though I doubt many people would whole-heartedly support that.</p>

<p><em>shrug</em> I'm a student who wouldn't be affected by the system one way or another. It's not personal at all for myself.</p>

<p>The problem, in my opinion, is not making classes "representative" but making them correctly "representative" and "equalizing".
Doing it purely by race doesn't cut it because it ignores too many factors.</p>

<p>As I said, are you not going to differentiate between Pacific Islanders and Asians? Pacific Islanders have FAR more in common with Native Americans than they do Asians.</p>

<p>Even within "Asians", there is a plethora of groups with different socioeconomic standing. Chinese and Japanese are primarily well-off, on average. Laotian and Hmong are not. How are you going to correctly differentiate these?</p>

<p>Your race box is too simple. And even if you expand it and people still bother with the absolute deluge of categories, you still won't fully capture what is needed to make these classes "equally representative".</p>

<p>It's the same reason statisticians use probability-based sampling.
They aren't arrogant enough to believe that they can think of everything themselves when trying to get a representative sample.</p>

115

<p>fabrizio, </p>

<p>-Actually the UC system was appalled by the low numbers of african american students at its UCB and UCLA campuses. And proposition 209 PROHIBITED the UC system from recruiting heavily from largely african american high schools. So in a sense it prevented the only benefit that comes from your system. </p>

<p>The UCB and UCLA want equal representation on their campus. They adapted a holistic approach in order to seek out more african american students in admissions. The UC system is a better example of why meritocracy doesn't work then why it does.</p>

116

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]

And proposition 209 PROHIBITED the UC system from recruiting heavily from largely african american high schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong. It prohibited them from using programs that recruit only Black students. It did not prohibit them from recruiting all students. Largely is not the same thing as exclusively.</p>

<p>You have chosen to ignore UC’s decision to send more teachers, to expand and generalize their outreach programs, and to create schools that target disadvantaged Americans. These are all benefits that come from the policy that I support.</p>

<p>It is a historical irony that “holistic” admissions is now justified as the vehicle for inclusion when it was created for purposes of exclusion.</p>

117

<p>i'm asian. i am going to check asian on my box, even if it disadvantages me (low-income asian applying for financial aid ) . </p>

<p>Why? </p>

<p>cuz this is my heritage. I'm not going to let admissions deny who i am, and what my culture is. </p>

<p>i'm asian and proud of it.</p>

118

<p>o yeah, i almost forgot, the original post!!! lol.</p>

<p>yeah, go goddess. i don't know people would even consider denying their race for admissions, who would let college admissions have that much power over them?</p>

119

<p>A question for poster #117; Where is there a country or nation called Asia? Seems as though you've fallen for the meandering and arbitrary logic promoted by the U.S. Census Bureau for decades.</p>

120

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>
[quote]

...i don't know people would even consider denying their race for admissions, who would let college admissions have that much power over them?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They're just like the actors who change their last names to more "star quality" ones.</p>

<p>You know, like Natalie Hershlag, Issur Danielovitch Demsky, and Ram</p>