<p>^^ Point acknowledged, Hunt. I think there are other differences, but I attribute less significance to them than you do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t ignore studies. Far from it. I acknowledge their pertinence when applicable. Hunt has just told you, as have others, that skin color or nat’l origin is not the only admissions factor between the groups which were compared by E&C; their data was extremely limited, both in their access to it and in what they chose to single out. “Race” would never be a single aspect, not even for URM’s, nor race + score together, nor race + score + gpa together, nor even race + score + gpa + general achievement in e.c.'s. That, actually is a simplistic understanding. </p>
<p>Holistic admissions is complex, not simple. That’s entirely the point. There are no straight-line-formulas for admission or rejection: not by race, not by score, not by major, not by region, not by e.c.'s, etc. Everything is combined, weighed, compared – and compared only within the applicant pool, which is ultimately not predictable. If you are exceptional in all the categories examined by admissions officers (vs. other applicants for that cycle), your chances of admission increase significantly. If you are one of dozens of white crew members from the Upper East Side, interested in majoring in Econ, good luck with that, unless you have unusual academic awards or some other aspect that makes you look truly different from those peers.</p>
<p>^ Holistic admissions cannot be summarized as “too complex to discern discrimination,” as you are trying to do. Straight-line-formulas don’t exist–but general subjective cutoffs do. That is how everyone makes judgments, i.e. if you are only allowed to admit 2 of every 10 applicants, you will develop personal criteria to judge how an applicant ranks within the pool.</p>
<p>In order for E&C’s data to be invalid, let’s take X = “all” factors - SAT score ranges. Then X must be significantly, consistently different across ethnic groups. Please show me a study that found black students pursuing more diverse ECs, or achieving in them at a higher level, than white students (to simplify the races for a moment). Or white students vs. Asian students. A study, mind you, not stereotypes and anecdotes.</p>
<p>From what we know of the process, according Hernandez and Steinberg and others, URM candidates are essentially reviewed in a segregated pool against only other URMs. This is not a quota system because there’s no target number or percentage to accept; rather, the implication is that URMs must meet the standard of “can they succeed here” instead of “are they better than X other applicants.”</p>
<p>In any case, epiphany, let me ask you a question: given the “complex” holistic admissions process, what type of data WOULD convince you that racial discrimination is occurring?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a very good question, one worthy of being asked to a lot of people. What kind of evidence could falsify a claim by a closeted bigot that what the bigot is doing is only “holistic admission” and not outrageous racism?</p>
<p>^ A formal, written confession delivered by the adcoms at every elite school in America. :-\ That’s what happens when you hide in the premise of a holistic process and fail to realize that TRENDS can be quantified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I see a poster doing the following:</p>
<p>1) On CC for years with thousands of posts on AA offering false or unsubstantiated information</p>
<p>2) Avoid the issue of Jewish (even greater) over-representation while pounding on Asian over-representation</p>
<p>3) Attack literally every study ever done on the topic but is unable to offer any in support of her own position</p>
<p>4) When caught talking out of both sides of her mouth, just avoid the question.</p>
<p>These and other points would strongly suggest that we are dealing with a closeted bigot, or at least someone that works for one. When we are dealing with social sciences, which the poster does not believe in, it is not possible to expect religious certainty. Additional research can only add information to support one side of the argument or the other. Most dispassionate observers that I know can accept this true.</p>
<p>It is of course possible to be a closeted bigot and work for one. “Passion” is not only important for admission to an elite college, it is necessary to doing a job well too.</p>
<p>This question offers a way out of the “semantic hell” that I constantly talk about; and it should have been asked long ago. Better to be late than never, I guess.</p>
<p>I would be convinced by a deeper study that looked at a lot more factors, including areas of interest and ECs, geography, etc. That would probably convince me that there is a bias. To show that there is a *deliberate *bias would be a lot harder, unless you find a smoking gun document.</p>
<p>There should be a survey among all Asian applicants to see how many of them believe that they are discriminated against. I would not be surprised if the great moajority of them say yes to this question.
The discrimination is so obvious but some people try to use all sorts of excuse such as EC’s to rationalize it.</p>
<p>People seem to be forgetting that using race as a factor in admissions is not currently illegal racial discrimination. You must include it as one of the admissions variables in your analysis. And it may trump all other quantified objective and subjective factors in some cases. Nothing in current law prohibits this.</p>
<p>Canuchguy,
I think your comments are way out of line. If your goal is to “shut up” any opposing arguments, then go ahead and keep calling posters “bigots” and other names. You and your side will be left “discussing” how right you all are, not arguing this issue.</p>
<p>
On the contrary, it is actually quite illegal. Essentially all elite colleges receive federal funding (obviously this depends on your perception of elite, but this includes all universities in the USNWR top 25 and probably all the top LACs as well). Federal-funded institutions are prohibited by law from practicing racial discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I read that sentence to mean, “A careful analysis of how colleges actually admit students would have to analyze carefully how colleges consider race student race as an admission factor,” then I agree with the statement. We can only sort out what admission factors matter, if we can do that at all, if we analyze all possible factors that might matter. The point is well taken from several participants here that sports can matter, other extracurriculars can matter, legacy status can matter, school relationships with “feeder” high schools can matter, geography can matter, and so on. </p>
<p>But if the quoted statement is taken to mean “colleges are required in all cases to consider student race,” which seems like a barely tenable reading in view of the following sentence, that would be a misstatement of current law. Colleges, under federal law, are perfectly entitled to have wholly race-blind admission policies, as a few state university systems do under state law. Nothing about federal law prohibits colleges from completely disregarding student race as an admission factor. Current federal law </p>
<p>[Race/National</a> Discrimination Overview](<a href=“http://www.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/raceoverview.html]Race/National”>Race, Color, or National Origin Discrimination Overview) </p>
<p>“prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provided grants of assistance are required to enforce the Title VI regulation.” Unawareness of this legal principle by most parents and most students has probably resulted in little use of the Department of Education complaint procedure </p>
<p>[OCR</a> Complaint Process](<a href=“http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintprocess.html]OCR”>OCR Complaint Process) </p>
<p>that triggers enforcement of this law. But colleges have to be careful how they consider student race in admission decisions, because the law is clear that colleges are not allowed to discriminate. (Most states also have state statutes prohibiting race discrimination, but again these are little known to many parents or college students.) </p>
<p>What confuses the situation somewhat is that there is another body of federal regulation </p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Department of Education; Office of the Secretary; Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education [OS]](<a href=“http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html]U.S”>http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html) </p>
<p>related to the law cited above that requires colleges to ask applicants and ask enrolled students about their “race” according to certain federally defined categories. That confuses many students into thinking that affirmative action on the basis of race is actually a mandatory policy. But it is not. Every college has to ask the survey questions of students, but students are permitted to decline to answer the questions, and colleges are permitted to report to the federal government that the students’ race is unknown. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html</a> </p>
<p>And, again, even with this regulation in place colleges are permitted to entirely disregard race as an admission factor, as some are required to do under state laws.</p>
<p>tokenadult,
My statement was with regard to “elite” colleges which I believe is the subject of this thread. Nearly all of the U.S. colleges we think of as the “elite” do use race as a factor, which they are legally entitled to do. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that all colleges <em>must</em> consider race as a factor.</p>
<p>
See
Elite institutions are federally-funded.</p>
<p>monstor,
Either you are missing an important piece of the law on AA (please read/see the Grutter case: [Grutter</a> v. Bollinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger]Grutter”>Grutter v. Bollinger - Wikipedia)), or I’m missing your point. </p>
<p>You are correct that colleges which receive federal $$ cannot discriminate on the basis of race, but the U.S. Supreme Ct has held that considering race as a factor in admissions does not constitute prohibited racial discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this factual statement, but note that some people include Berkeley and UCLA and Michigan among “elite” colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I might characterize that as “which they have been allowed to do as part of narrowly tailored programs to seek campus diversity in closely divided Supreme Court decisions.” Thus, for example, if any privately operated college were found to have an explicit quota system upon Department of Education compliance review, I would expect that system to be found illegal, just as one such state university medical system was found illegal in the Bakke case. Similarly, if underrepresented minority students invariably get a boost that other students never get, I’d expect the same result as in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (decided the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger), that the program would be declared illegal. Many lawyers have commented after Grutter that it is very difficult to define just what Grutter says is a legal practice. And some Court-watchers aren’t sure that the next case that presents similar facts to be litigated will reach the same result.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this factual statement, but note that some people include Berkeley and UCLA and Michigan among “elite” colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I might characterize that as “which they have been allowed to do as part of narrowly tailored programs to seek campus diversity in closely divided Supreme Court decisions.” Thus, for example, if any privately operated college were found to have an explicit quota system upon Department of Education compliance review, I would expect that system to be found illegal, just as one such state university medical school system was found illegal in the Bakke case. Similarly, if underrepresented minority students invariably get a boost that other students never get, I’d expect the same result as in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (decided the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger)–that the program would be declared illegal. Many lawyers have commented after Grutter that it is very difficult to define just what Grutter says is a legal practice. And some Court-watchers aren’t sure that the next case that presents similar facts to be litigated will reach the same result.</p>
<p>If you’re going to use race as a measure of college accpetance, why don’t you use it in other aspects of life? </p>
<p>Take the NFL (National Football League). The amount of asians is SEVERELY lower than the amount of African-Americans (both in percentage, and in raw number). Take any professional sport (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, NASCAR) and you’ll find the number of asians is significantly lower. Here all the arguments in favor of affirmative action still hold. More diversity in sports. Allows asians to have “their own” role models in sports, etc. </p>
<p>Even take the non-professional level where athletes are not paid. Let’s use affirmative action on the high school football team, or perhaps even college recruiting processes. The black running back from Texas might be a hell of a lot better than the Indian from Maryland, but that would hurt the diversity on the football team. We wouldn’t be giving Indians a broad oppurtunity to advance themselves in sports, right?</p>
<p>I want someone is in favor of affirmative action, to explain why these policies should not be used in every fascet of competitive life. </p>
<p>And quickly, I’d like to address the “yellow fever” argument. Besides the obvious fallacy that shcool’s would turn “90% asian” all of a sudden, Asia does not equal china. India is a part of Asia. Asia is a continent. People seem to marginalize asians into one ethnic group, while the entirety of the asian population is much mroe diverse.</p>
<p>ok throughout this thread all I have heard is BASICALLY that african americans have it easier than asians and that its not fair. what is wrong with you people? we are all minorities and yet you make these threads that seem to bash on other minority races. Yess I do agree that it seems that asians seem to be at a disadvantage but you can not blame it on the other races, someone stated that a black person that scored a 1840 on the SAT is more likely to be accepted thhan an asian with a higher score. why would you say this? remember that there are other aspects of the applications that come into play when determining admission.</p>
<p>From my point of view I find this thread offensive because I am african american and it upsets me to think that fellow students that are hard working seem to think that people of my race have college admissions easier. This may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is that ALL minorities have a certain disadvantage and advantage in the college process. We should not be thinking that one race has it better than another; it makes it seems as though you wish that that race had more hardships. As shown by many other threads race continues to be one of the most controversial issues in america and we are the future of this country. Now if we keep this mentality that one race has it harder than another, aren’t we repeating the same issues that were brought forth in the past. I ask you people we should not be judging the circumstances of another race because we all go through things that none of us can simply comprehend. If we are the futuree of this country must we not remove this idea of race and relations? and begin to see each other as equals.</p>
<p>Hey tokenadult; How about merging the FAQ thread into THIS one? (smile)</p>