<p>While I can't really respond to all the arguments about racism and equal opportunity, I just want to say that, linking back to the original topic, I don't think Swarthmore is looking to increase the percentage of "students of color" in the next class – I think the student body is already something like 45% students of color. I think they want more applicants for the same number of spots – if there are more applicants, then fewer get accepted, thereby making URM admissions more competitive and making it more like non-URM admissions.</p>
<p>Of course, they could be looking to have more students of color, but I don't think so.</p>
<p>Do they actually report the admissions stats by race, as to how many apply and get accepted, or just by how many get accepted?</p>
<p>If they want to appear overall more cometitive, then why not send out fee waivers and extensions to all races? Did Caucasian applicants get these perks? Such as economically disadvantaged whites? Or Mongolians, etc?</p>
<p>No Caucasian or Asian has reported getting these perks (or, looked at another way, those who have gotten said perks have themselves as neither Asian nor Caucasian.</p>
<p>"Time to turn off the TV, stop looking for the big bucks in drugs and settle down like everyone else."</p>
<p>with people like you in the world... :( (tsk tsks)</p>
<p>"If they want to appear overall more cometitive, then why not send out fee waivers and extensions to all races? Did Caucasian applicants get these perks? Such as economically disadvantaged whites?"</p>
<p>since colleges tend not to learn the economic status of their applicants until after the students have already applied, it might be a bit difficult to give fee waivers to the poorer students (of course, the poorer applicants could just ASK for fee waivers). colleges would have to start asking about the financial situations of their prospective students early in the admissions game if they would like to extend these "fee waiver e-mails" to the economically disadvantaged...</p>
<p>I wasn't saying that they want to appear more competitive. Right now, URM admissions isn't fair compared to non-URM admissions. A qualified URM applicant is more likely to get in than a qualified non-URM applicant, simply because there are fewer qualified applicants for each spot. If they get more URM applicants, admissions won't be so lopsided, and URM applicants will lose some of their advantage. Maybe they do want to appear more competitive (all schools do, I believe), but I don't think that's the point of this move.</p>
<p>I'm not saying it's a fair way to do it, I'm just saying why I think they're doing it.</p>
<p>They can focus by zip code for highly qualified low income applcants instead of going by race. But giving opportunites by race is much easier for them. I know that the College Board and other organizations easily provide this racial information. And it is far more politically correct and looks better in the college's PC stats. I don't know if the College Board provides income information, but there are computer programs for admissions offices by zip code that do this, that can then be correlated with student information. But again, the schools do not want more white shining faces, they are stuck on "people of color" needing the opportunities, regardless of income or the need for opportunities. It is a badge of honor for admissions officers. So they will recruit wealthy blacks from exclusive private schools, rather than doing the much harder task of finding poor whites. It is what the colleges are used to, and again, it is their priority. Also these students from privare schools are part of well-oiled admissions machines and easier to find. Much easier than touring poor areas of upstate NY or rural Wisconsin schools, for example.</p>
<p>arach: My state has a disproportionate number of blacks who very early on choose selling drugs and going to prison over doing homework and continuing school. The black dropout rate in the local cities is greater than 50%. This is a choice that the students and their families make as to what is emphasized at home. It is not my fault or your fault. When the families wise up and devote more time to these young men and women caring about education, then their lives will change. The schools are there, and if they want to finish and go to college, they can. Some do. But if they and their parents want to concentrate on other activities, then that is their choice. If you want to try to change things for this group, become a kindergarten teacher in an urban area. This is the age that maybe you can reach them. This is not prejudice, this is unfortunately fact.</p>
<p>adaman: Why should there be URM slots? there should be spots for qualified students, not by how much melanin they have in their skins. They've got this admissions thing reversed.</p>
<p>swatparent: i understand where you're coming from; i just thought your previous comments were a tad too generalized/borderline offensive...i live in a city w/ a nearly 50% black population, and a high dropout rate among all h/s students. at the same time, there is one school in particular that doesn't experience the same troubles; almost 100% of its students graduate, and a great number of the grads go on to top 25/ivy institutions. this (my) school's demographic makeup is about 1/4 black, and these black students also wind up at the premier institutions (their credentials also match up w/ their white, etc. counterparts)... i honestly think that it is a little outdated/inaccurate to think that so many blacks wind up "selling dope or getting thrown into the slammer." i think it's safe to say that a majority of AAs are upstanding citizens and only want to succeed in their respective lives. sure, there are some drug dealers and inmates (the same can be said for any racial group), but for the most part, blacks are the same as anyone else...</p>
<p>Adaman might have hit in on the head. Swat probably just wants more applicants to choose from to maintain their current (and perfectly reasonable) URM percentages.</p>
<p>Just throwing this out there- UChicago actually returned my application fee b/c I go to a noncompetitive, not super well off, rural school. So the argument of colleges not knowing who to target with fee waivers until after they apply (ie. spoiled African American gets a fee waiver while not so well off white kid doesn't) is faulty. They can find out and can return app fees.</p>
<p>In my area, the chances of a black male going to prison is astronomically higher than going to college. The crime and dropout rates are much higher in the black population in this area, and that is as compared to all other groups, even new immigrant groups, who often come to this country with no English skills and quickly do very well with little or no special services, as this is not a wealthy area. I see what the black community does in part as a lifestyle choice. </p>
<p>I am for equal consideration and enhanced financial aid for poor blacks, whites, Asians, Arabs, Hispanics, Russians, and any other group that needs extra money and education about the availability of colleges and universities. But favoring people by the the color of their skin is not, to me, a fair policy, and actually that policy is what I see is rascist.</p>
<p>Swatparent - I have never posted on this site but have read and gained much insight from many informative posters over the past few months.</p>
<p>I could not keep silent at the truly offensive and disgusting comments that you wrote in your post. So my first post on CC is to tell you that you are not a borderline racist you ARE a racist for spewing the vitriol that you did.</p>
<p>I am reporting you to college confidential because I don't think ANYONE should have to be confronted with the nonsense you wrote. Certainly, I don't appreciate logging on and reading this stuff.</p>
<p>When I have more time I will reference for you an article from the Wall Street Journal from which these statistics are taken (an article written by a black journalist). I am not saying that it is desirable that local black men go to prison in overwhelmingly high numbers, and that the dropout rate among black men is over 50%. These are just facts.</p>
<p>well, you know what they say about statistics.....</p>
<p>honestly, Swatparent, what does that have to do with hardworking students who obviously visit CC and have college ambitions? They are clearly not the group that you reference. </p>
<p>I think to have a discussion about the merits of Swarthmore enticing students with fee waivers and extension in the same breath that you discuss black men going to prison and drug dealing is insulting. They are unrelated matters.</p>
<p>While I didn't really care for swatparent's comments either, I disagree with you Joix. They aren't unrelated matters. The discussion is about the necessity of the fee waivers and extension, and about how it may reflect popular perceptions of black men (or statistical perceptions). I agree that people applying to Swarthmore are certainly not going to prison or doing drugs, regardless of race, but this sort of discussion is, I think, relevant when discussing affirmative action. And you can't deny that the fee waivers and extension ARE instances of affirmative action.</p>
<p>While I think swatparent's comments weren't exactly tasteful, I don't think they make him/her racist.</p>
<p>well, thank God we are all allowed to have our differing opinions. I don't know what someone would have to say to be considered a racist then.</p>
<p>Why do you consider Swarthmore's fee waiver affirmative action? They were thousands of emails going out to white students with fee waivers....why is that not considered affirmative action? Swarthmore's action is NOT affirmative action for your information, it is an incentive. (if you do this....we will do that). There is a BIG difference and when you start throwing around words like "affirmative action" in this culture that is so race sentive, you start to muddy the waters.</p>
<p>In terms of raw numbers, URM are such a small group of students in college that I am shocked that white people spend their energy talking about them. The truth is, the competition of the average white student is the 95% other white students not the 5% of URM, of which perhaps half are black. </p>
<p>Why worry about 2.5% of the applicants/student body pool?</p>
<p>A discussion of Swarthmore's fee waivers has nothing to do with a discussion of drug dealing and black men going to prison. I resent deeply being subjected to such commentary on America's social ills on a website for students to get information for their college applications. </p>
<p>Has anyone here thought how a hard working URM with stellar grades and scores would feel logging on here and seeing this crap? </p>
<p>Has anyone thought that Swarthmore probably gave the extension because they had not received enough URM applications to fill their numbers? It appears these waivers were given to people who attended the Discovery Weekend - could it not have been that a smaller percentage than usual of students who attended DW chose to apply?? </p>
<p>Maybe the extension was to allow Swarthmore more time to muster up more applicants. This is NOT Affirmative action....this is sales.</p>
<p>If a white student can not get into the 95% college slots available to them, then blame it on yourself and not URM.</p>
<p>Why are there "URM slots?" What I am trying to point out is that somehow the colleges need to be reaching the really poor people in the cities, towns and rural areas that are URMs and nonURMs, if they are really going to make a change. That is the true affirmative part of affirmative action. Cherry-picking off the top by race is not going to change society.
The wealthy minority who can afford a fee should not be the target for waivers in my opinion, it is the truly needy who need the breaks. Of course, unfortunately these urban dwellers going to prison are not applying to college. But getting these students early on and then nurturing them into college, regardless of race, that is the bigger challenge. Is society up to it? I doubt it if the mere mention of these populations is considered rascist.</p>
<p>There were white students who got the extension and fee waiver too? Really? I didn't know that. I think we came to the conclusion on this thread that it was just URMs who did. My apologies, it isn't affirmative action, you're right Joix.</p>