<p>
[quote]
It's not about fairness.
[/quote]
It should be. What is the point of "diversity" other than for colleges to be able to gloat about how enlightened they are or some other politically correct crap?</p>
<p>they can choose whoever and however they want. it's THEIR school. they don't want a bunch of white kids. that's no fun and it doesn't look as pretty on the brochure.</p>
<p>"What is the point of "diversity" other than for colleges to be able to gloat about how enlightened they are or some other political correct crap?"</p>
<p>Colleges and universities want to provide stimulating and vibrant educational environments, so they seek to attract bright, motivated, talented students who, collectively, bring diverse backgrounds and interests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they can choose whoever and however they want. it's THEIR school. they don't want a bunch of white kids. that's no fun and it doesn't look as pretty on the brochure.
[/quote]
I'm not saying there should be a law to prevent them from doing this or something if they are private colleges, after all (although this kind of thing should be expressly evaporated from public universities and any colleges that receives federal or state funding). But can we at least all recognize how retarded this is? The colleges wouldn't be doing this if people didn't care for it, and people would stop caring for it if the whole diversity thing would stop being put in a goddamn pedestal.</p>
<p>EDIT:
[quote]
Colleges and universities want to provide stimulating and vibrant educational environments, so they seek to attract bright, motivated, talented students who, collectively, bring diverse backgrounds and interests.
[/quote]
I am not sure which from your ambiguous sentence structure, but either you are saying that the college attracts bright, motivated, talented students in order to provide the stimulating and vibrant educational environments and that these students happen to bring diverse backgrounds and interests, or else you are saying that the college brings diverse backgrounds and interests to the college (in order to provide a stimulating and vibrant educational environment) by attracting bright, motivated, talented students.</p>
<p>In either case, you seem to imply that diverse backgrounds and interests are a natural consequence of admitting bright, motivated, talented students. Regardless of which of the two you think is what causes the stimulating and vibrant educational environment, would it not be better to simply admit the bright, motivated, talented students by using metrics which measure how bright, motivated, and talented they are and the stimulating and let the vibrant educational environment will follow?</p>
<p>Diversity efforts will disappear if and when the public demands it. All students have to do is stop applying to schools that promote whatever kinds of diversity they object to.</p>
<p>"by using metrics which measure how bright, motivated, and talented they are"</p>
<p>I don't think anyone has found a way to do this with metrics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think anyone has found a way to do this with metrics.
[/quote]
Bright: IQ score. Could be made a mandatory score for admissions.</p>
<p>Bright & Motivated: Standardized tests like the SAT or the ACT. The only way to do very good on those is to either have natural brilliance or to spend a crapload of time studying / attending prep classes / practicing / etc... (or some combination of both).</p>
<p>Bright & Motivated: GPA. Kinda like the SAT, except it varies more from school to school. Lots of AP Classes, Honors classes, IB Classes, or dual enrollment would help an applicant stand out as both. Or else just use a weighting system (with, for example, honors classes being worth 1 point more than regular classes and ap/ib being worth 2 more points in a 4.0 scale, or whatever you feel it's appropriate).</p>
<p>Motivated: A lot of extracurriculars help to demonstrate this.</p>
<p>Motivated: Pursuing an particular extracurricular for a long time helps to demonstrate this.</p>
<p>Motivated: A lot of community service helps to demonstrate this.</p>
<p>Talented: Depends on what area we are measuring. If we want talent in singing, for example, the student can record a clip of themselves singing and sent it to the admissions office. If we want talent at writing poetry, the student can send a poem. And so on. Maybe the college can have a supplemental section dedicated to this.</p>
<p>Most of what you wrote are not your requested metrics, but the standard subjective methods commonly in use. There's no agreement on IQ or exactly how to apply GPA and test scores. No one wants all schools to be alike in their admittance criteria. Be happy there are so many different schools that value different things! There are even a few schools known for their lack of diversity.</p>
<p>Well, it by metrics you mean only quantitative scores, then I have at least provided three: GPA, IQ, and SAT/ACT. Also, I don't mind some qualitative methods (a person who exceeds at the AMCs but got a low SAT due to bad reading/writing probably deserves to take the spot of the applicant with the lowest scores you were going to let in instead). I specifically protest one qualitative method of determining applicants in this thread - affirmative action.</p>
<p>I dunno that "no one wants all schools to be alike in their admittance criteria." Where do you get this assertion? A lot of us believe we know what good admission criteria are and would like to see more schools implement them, or at least see less schools applying voodoo criteria like AA. If they applied different criteria that were still academic (for example, the engineering school focusing more on math score and extracurriculars while the liberal arts school focuses heavily on the submitted essays and ap langauge/literature), I wouldn't have a problem. My problem is when they let non-academic criteria sway their judgment for the sake of "diversity."</p>
<p>You can acknowledge your viewpoint by applying only to schools that don't consider racial/ethnic status. Google a candidate school's "common data set" and look for Section C7's "Racial/ethnic status" line to have "Not Considered" checked.</p>
<p>No the point is not flawed because Asians have a white skin color. Hispanics and blacks have a dark skin color. Many social hierarchies in history have ordered it according to culture then skin color. Blacks and Hispanics especially blacks have been metaphorically "spit on" throughout history in America until the 1950's. Yes there is some racism between Asian Americans but not as bad as African Americans. part of it is that most Asian parents stress education while black parents do not as much.</p>
<p>You probably wouldn't realize this also, but if you're a minority from a neighborhood where everyone looks like you, and you're really smart, why would you want to go to a school where EVERYONE looks different from you? I think that's another reason why AA is there. It gives the lower levels a way out, and so when they become successful they feel compelled to give back. And when other smart minorities see that person, they want to do the same. It's likea cycle. It's not fair that it is only by race or socioeconomic factor, but either way, when it comes down to it, if you're African-American or Hispanic in America, people automatically assume something about you.
When you're White or Asian, people automatically assume something about you.
People expect minorities to fail and become gang members and whatnot. It's simply expected of you in society. You have people of your own community trying to convince you to stop trying and to give up to be a failure just like them. Whereas in, say, the Asian community, it's downright absurd to find one that doesn't strive for the best always. </p>
<p>So in a sense, even if they're from the suburbs, I still think minorities have to not only be smart and work hard, but also fight a status quo that expects them to fail. I know it's not fair to many of you who've always strived for 4.0s and 2400 on the SAT, but there are many people in this country that don't have those same opportunities. And you wouldn't be able to see it from their perspective if you never met one, right? Which is why AA is good; we all learn from each other, to hopefully break down racial barriers in the future.</p>
<p>^ I totally agree with u</p>
<p>Schools want diversity. So what do they do? they take the most qualified people in each race and admitt them. The fact is that there are less URMs with the same credentials as Asians/Whites so some URMs who get into "top" schools have lower stats. URMs only compete with other URMs in admissions, so i dont know why other ethnicities would complain about it. And I am not afraid to admitt it( no pun intended): The major reason I got into Stanford is because im African American. I'm still a smart, hard working student, so i deserve to go as much as anyone else.</p>
<p>I agree. My friend who moved here from LA as a freshman told me about growing up in a hispanic slum in California. He said that his friends didn't about the SAT's and college and simply didn't care. Kids were more concerned about what gang they were going to join when they got older then about what college they would go to. If you grow up in a suburban setting it's hard to realize what growing up in the city is like. In the suburbs, kids see their parents and neighbors making money by working 9-5's therefore they see that as their definition of being successful and well off. But in the hood, kids see the dealers and gang members as their role models because often times parents are drug addicts or simply don't care. The big time criminals in their neighborhood define their perception of success, therefore it can be difficult for black/hispanic youths to escapes the confines of urban warzones. Blacks and Hispanics are just as capable of success as whites/asians but the environments are extremely different. It's basically a case of nature/nurture.
i have one example to show what i mean, in "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" as told to Alex Haley, Malcolm X talks about a man who was a numbers runner. He would memorize people's number bets (3-digit numbers) often times memorizing up to 50 different 3 digit numbers at a time so that he didn't need to right them down. Malcolm said that if he didn't grow up in Harlem then he could have been a great scientist or mathematician. It's sad but a person's environment makes a huge impact on their progress through life.</p>
<p>^ so then why don't they use zip codes to identify applicants from poor areas instead of using the color of ones skin?</p>
<p>this is a pretty one-sided thread lol. there have been some legendary aa debates - i remember reading one with fabrizio and drosselmeier awhile ago.</p>
<p>So just avoid the schools that practice AA if you don't like it. Most public schools don't use AA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but if you're a minority from a neighborhood where everyone looks like you, and you're really smart, why would you want to go to a school where EVERYONE looks different from you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a really good point. Two (black) friends of mine go to Bucknell, and they tell me how (stupid-ass) (white) girls come up to them and ask to touch their hair all the time, like it was something wierd. </p>
<p>Random story, but I think it shows what it's like when schools don't have major AA, and speaks to the importance of having minority groups on campus so people don't act like idiots. Although some always will, I suppose. (Bucknell is about 87% white, by the way.)</p>
<p>^ Re the hair, at least they are talking and getting to know each other, at least a little. It's a shame it didn't happen when they were much younger.</p>