<p>Few would accuse the school of racism. Remember, CC is mostly hyper competitive, white/asian, and upper-middle class--with a few exceptions. That pressure from more applicants since the late 1990's is what may be causing the hyper-sensitivity. That will ease from now on (until 2015), making it easier for future HS grads to get into the schools everyone is talking about today. Fewer applicants means higher rates of acceptance.</p>
<p>To be clear, only those in power--which are currently non-URMs--can be racist, while those that are not--currently URMs--can only be prejudice. Thus, reverse discrimination--which requires power to institute--is illogical by sociological/psychological/anthropological definition.</p>
<p>Few URMs would have the power to do much about a rejected URM with great stats. Not a surprise.</p>
<p>As for Ji, he raised the issue because he assumed certain characteristics of other URM and non-URM candidates. He shows his prejudice by forwarding that argument. All that, rather than question his own application--a little bit arrogant, no?</p>
<p>Should I question why I did not get into ALL of my schools (LACs and other universities) since I was lucky to get into a few Top-10 LACs and universities? Could it be race discrimination (I'm Asian/White)? Nope. Or, I would not have gotten in, since I was in the middle 50% for test scores and did not have an unweighted 4.0 average.</p>
<p>Well, when I said that there are less scholarship opportunities for ORM's than there are for URM's, I didn't mean to get so technical. What I meant was that there are prestigious scholarships along the line of the National Achievement Scholarship program, which is only open to African-Americans and is probably considered much more prestigious than most scholarships only open to URM's.</p>
<p>And just to clarify, I do not agree with Jian Li. It does show prejudice and arrogance on his part to make such a big deal over his rejection - I am just trying to state that giving URM's prestigious opportunities that are not open to others does not serve to put everyone on a level playing field. That's why race-blind admissions are best.</p>
<p>An even playing field is an illusion of sorts, as it would mean that those in power--usually non-URMs--share more of it with those who do not have it. That is how the situation came to this. Those that have power tend to want to keep it, while those that do not, want some of it. That's how Balkanization happens--in-fighting between out groups (i.e. Asians, Blacks, Latino/a). </p>
<p>It's a relief that some of those in power see it for what it is...hence the social upheaval in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Some people question the status quo, instead of reinforcing it to protect themselves. And, thank goodness for holistic admissions practices.</p>
<p>Race-blind admissions, by the way, would ignore the historic as well as current social, political, and economic inequities in primary, secondary, and higher education and society as a whole. Never mind that it makes cultural differences invisible. As an ethnically mixed individual (part Asian/White), that would be unacceptable. To an extent, that is what made me who I am today, even with average stats and grades. I'm glad adcoms were able to look past test scores and cumulative gpa to consider my community service and leadership positions (as well as recs, essays, and interviews) in my case.</p>
Race-blind admissions, by the way, would ignore the historic as well as current social, political, and economic inequities in primary, secondary, and higher education and society as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would also prevent discrimination by not allowing the reader to make judgments based on race.</p>
<p>A racist individual cannot exercise his racism on an applicant if he does not know the applicant's race.</p>
<p>Discrimination happens when those in power--usually non-URMs--try to oppress out groups. </p>
<p>Out groups can be prejudice (by sociological standards), but not racist.</p>
<p>In groups can be racist and prejudice, because they have the power to reinforce the status quo.</p>
<p>So a racist (generally non-URMs) can use context clues through interviews, zip code, HS, language usage, parent's jobs, etc...to act on his or her prejudice/racists tendencies, while claiming to be fair.</p>
<p>Welcome back. :)</p>
<p>BTW, I forgot how to highlight, care to share?</p>
<p>P.S. The democratic primary is a good example of this, whether speaking about gender or race/ethnicity. Balkanize and conquer. Bad for Democratic party unity. Does it happen? Yes, I think so--no matter if it is with regards to gender, race, status, class, politics, etc... You have people who will strategically do what is good for their group, rather than be open-minded--there are exceptions, however. As for me, I'm biased towards holistic admissions practices--although that is/was to my benefit even as I am part Asian/White. Also, I did not check race/ethnicity on any of my applications to college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Discrimination happens when those in power--usually non-URMs--try to oppress out groups. </p>
<p>Out groups can be prejudice (by sociological standards), but not racist.</p>
<p>In groups can be racist and prejudice, because they have the power to reinforce the status quo.</p>
<p>So a racist (generally non-URMs) can use context clues through interviews, zip code, HS, etc...to act on his or her prejudice/racists tendencies, while claiming to be fair.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Being part of an "out group" does not mean the automatic loss of the ability to hate, the tendency to think of one's group as being inherently superior to all others, or the freedom to treat people differently based on their group membership. I thus strongly disagree with how you define discrimination and the criteria you give for determining who can be a racist.</p>
<p>A racist can certainly use those context clues you mentioned. Please keep in mind, though, that a racist against race X would be highly unlikely to give a member of race X an interview in the first place if he knew the applicant's race beforehand. And, if that applicant went to the interview stage, assuming that he was the strongest candidate, the only way he'd not be offered the position is if all the interviewers are racists. Zip codes and high schools are imperfect barometers. They require far more fudge work than the "check which race / ethnicity you identify with" box.</p>
<p>Thanks for your welcome. To highlight quotes, use [ quote ] and [/ quote ] but remove the spaces.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being part of an "out group" does not mean the automatic loss of the ability to hate, the tendency to think of one's group as being inherently superior to all others, or the freedom to treat people differently based on their group membership.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The ability to hate is inherent to all people, I agree. The ability, however, to be in a position of power--like non-URMs--and to define the status quo is not accessible to all. That is the difference. And, while URMs can act on their hatred, as non-URMs have, they have little power to affect the status quo. Thus, they typically vie for power with others who make up the out group. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I thus strongly disagree with how you define discrimination and the criteria you give for determining who can be a racist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a sociological definition, not my own. You can disagree with the sociological community and my professors. That's where I got it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Zip codes and high schools are imperfect barometers. They require far more fudge work than the "check which race / ethnicity you identify with" box.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Historically, companies, schools, and government agencies have used zip codes as predictors, as well as the ethnicity/race box. There are algorithms that predict sales, yields, et al. So these imperfect predictors are still in use.</p>
<p>The federal and state governments use the check box, which reinforces the distinctions--while gathering 'helpful' data to determine numeric representation in government via the census. It is a way to see what the demographics are, race/ethnicity, income, education, et al. included.</p>
<p>Tacitly using divisions and categories can be a problem and lead to social and community divisions, no?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, if that applicant went to the interview stage, assuming that he was the strongest candidate, the only way he'd not be offered the position is if all the interviewers are racists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All the interviewers could be prejudice, or subconsciously look for something during the interview or on the application that would make the candidate less desirable. It does happen, especially if appearance is one of the qualification for the job (and which has been backed up by the courts from time to time). </p>
<p>Why would that be different than in other instances? What mechanism makes college admissions different or fairer--excluding holistic admissions that some schools practice?</p>
<p>Perfect SATs and etc mean nothing to admissions if your ECs don't hold up. Probably a misinformed individual plus because you are accepted to an Ivy doesn't mean every Ivy will take you. I have close SAT stats to his and to me, it is just a basic academic achievement. What I hope will make the difference is my ECs, not my scores lol. Best of luck to him with a pointless lawsuits. :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
Historically, companies, schools, and government agencies have used zip codes as predictors, as well as the ethnicity/race box. There are algorithms that predict sales, yields, et al. So these imperfect predictors are still in use.</p>
<p>The federal and state governments use the check box, which reinforces the distinctions--while gathering 'helpful' data to determine numeric representation in government via the census. It is a way to see what the demographics are, race/ethnicity, income, education, et al. included.</p>
<p>Tacitly using divisions and categories can be a problem and lead to social and community divisions, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure that many institutions have used zip codes as a predictor. However, it doesn't change that trying to guess an applicant's race based on the zip code requires more prediction than reading the ethnicity / race box, assuming that both the zip code and the ethnicity / race box are filled.</p>
<p>Any division and categorization can be problematic and lead to further division. Not surprising at all.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that my statement "the only way he'd not be offered the position is if all the interviewers are racists" is not true. However, I don't think you disputed that it would be unlikely for a racist application reviewer to give an interview to someone of the "wrong" race.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perfect SATs and etc mean nothing to admissions if your ECs don't hold up. Probably a misinformed individual plus because you are accepted to an Ivy doesn't mean every Ivy will take you. I have close SAT stats to his and to me, it is just a basic academic achievement. What I hope will make the difference is my ECs, not my scores lol. Best of luck to him with a pointless lawsuits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If Jian Li's extracurriculars were sub-par, why did Yale accept him? The statement "[just] because you are accepted to an Ivy doesn't mean every Ivy will take you" is true but evades the question. Why did Yale accept a student who only had "basic academic achievement[s]?" Could it possibly be that Li's extracurriculars did, in fact, hold up, and that Li had more than mere basic academic achievements?</p>
<p>Could be that Yale need something different than Princeton from Jian Li.</p>
<p>The decision might have been made with respect to the context of each schools pool of applicants.</p>
<p>Could be because of many things besides test scores and grade. For instance, recs, essays, major, et al. Different admissions committees would likely have different outcomes for each applicant, otherwise we'd only have to appy once to a central agency, which would determine which tier of schools we would be eligible for and could enroll in. Heaven forbid that one is a late bloomer or does not take multiple choice tests well. Sounds like tracking to me.</p>
<p>Colleges are different from one another, why would their decisions necessarily ALL be the SAME--especially given the hyper competitive nature and demographic trends of current applicants?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, it doesn't change that trying to guess an applicant's race based on the zip code requires more prediction than reading the ethnicity / race box, assuming that both the zip code and the ethnicity / race box are filled.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It requires more prediction. Not in disagreement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any division and categorization can be problematic and lead to further division. Not surprising at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, especially if a particular group defines the status quo for all, even the out groups. Hence, the parsing of minorities into sub-groups by the majority (and by minorities themselves) tends to keep ideas of race/ethnicity in place. Any program to change that is thus seen as unfair to the in group, especially if it favors others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you disputed that it would be unlikely for a racist application reviewer to give an interview to someone of the "wrong" race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can happen, but it's more likely not to. That being said, I've had that happen in a few instances. 'You look different than you sound on the phone.' 'You're different than what I pictured.' There are many more instances. </p>
<p>Other comments, to illustrate prejudice, from other Asians: 'Your English is so much stronger than math. That's odd.' 'You're not good at Calculus?' 'Ah, it's because you're half-White.'</p>
<p>"Actually, these scholarships are for Asians that ARE funded by "private organizations mainly run by Caucasians":</p>
<p>They are run by Asians. Just as the UNCF is run by blacks for blacks. That was the intention of my original post. Can you find a scholarship run by non-Asian for Asian exclusively? I can find it for other group.</p>