<p>
[quote]
our hs counselor insists that a few years ago a very qualified asian kid was denied to two ivys and when he called it was because of race...the asian quota had been met.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is something fishy about your story, considering that racial "quotas" in college admissions have been held to be illegal by the courts for quite some time now.</p>
<p>I can believe that a guidance counselor might believe or say this, but I find it impossible to believe that anyone in an Ivy admissions office would ever say such a thing. I'm quite certain they said, "We had many very qualified applicants this year, and had to make many difficult decisions."</p>
<p>
[quote]
and when he called it was because of race
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe for one minute that any admission officer at any of the eight Ivy League </p>
<p>Ivy</a> League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia </p>
<p>colleges would make such a statement over the phone. From there, I don't know if the high school counselor was full of baloney, or if the high school counselor was misunderstood after making a correct, different statement, but I am utterly sure that no such conversation happened.</p>
<p>Quota's are illegal according to The Supreme Court, but taking ethnicity (and other characteristics like special talent, legacy status, state residency, socioeconomic class, et al) is a universal aim, at least for the next 21+ years.</p>
<p>As with much of the debate that rages on this subject, it is a false dichotomy. One that oversimplifies the situation and is exacerbated by an individual's political viewpoint, class, and, yes, race at times. The argument is often a philosophical or practical one (normative or positive) with respect to what a particular stance would imply about our society. </p>
<p>Is the ideal (where people would somehow not use race at all when looking at others) a practical and implementable solution that does not favor those in the majority (non-URMs)? Or, is the reality of inequity still an issue that requires AA to ensure that women and URMs are not marginalized by the majority when the nations identity rests on the idea of freedom or fairness?</p>
<p>Positivists would say the reality of inequity is real and that AA is necessary to marginalized groups being given access to jobs or careers that have historically been denied to them--creating a prejudice against those in power. The normativists would argue that we should be fair at all costs, even if it means reinforcing the status quo.</p>
<p>So, I guess compromise is out of the question? It's one way or the other. Thank goodness some colleges & universities use a holistic admissions process to try and bridge the gap. Great middle ground between to poles. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Positivists would say the reality of inequity is real and that AA is necessary to marginalized groups being given access to jobs or careers that have historically been denied to them--creating a prejudice against those in power. The normativists would argue that we should be fair at all costs, even if it means reinforcing the status quo.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"AA is necessary..." is a normative statement even though you used neither "should" nor "ought." Simply using a verb like "is" does not make a statement positive. What matters is whether you are expressing an opinion. A word like "necessary" is a clear indicator of opinion. If you wanted a positive statement, something like "AA reduces inequity" fits the bill because it's an empirical matter; it can be tested by facts.</p>
<p>Not only is a "positivist" / "normativist" classification is another false dichotomy, but it is also nonsensical. (Ironic since you were railing against their use in this discussion.) Are you suggesting that "positivists" make only positive statements and that "normativists" make only normative statements? If so, what about the billions of people who use both types of statements everyday? Besides, the "positivist" you gave as an example didn't mind opining about the necessity of affirmative action.</p>
<p>All comments like "thank God for holistic admissions" have never made sense to me. Who's arguing for numbers only admissions? No one.</p>
<p>"Who's arguing for numbers only admissions? No one."</p>
<p>No one? You haven't read many threads on CC, have you?</p>
<p>I stand by my statement. In all the affirmative action discussions I have participated in here at CC, I have never met a single user who advocated for numbers only. I have, however, encountered many supporters of racial preferences who used the "oh, you just want numbers only admissions" straw man.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, a lot of highly educated people here can't understand that removing race from the admissions process does not render it "numbers only." If you consider extracurriculars, essays, recommendations, and so forth, it's holistic.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, I've seen many threads here where people complained about having to do ECs, etc., and stating a preference for "merit-based" admissions based on stats like they do in other countries. I just saw a new thread today where somebody is complaining that it's easier for males to get in with lower stats than females because schools are trying to balance genders. Perhaps we can agree that there are posters on CC who think that grades and scores should be, by far, the most important criteria for admissions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fabrizio, I've seen many threads here where people complained about having to do ECs, etc., and stating a preference for "merit-based" admissions based on stats like they do in other countries. I just saw a new thread today where somebody is complaining that it's easier for males to get in with lower stats than females because schools are trying to balance genders. Perhaps we can agree that there are posters on CC who think that grades and scores should be, by far, the most important criteria for admissions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can certainly agree that there are posters here who think that grades and scores should by far be the most important criteria for admissions. I'm one of them.</p>
<p>Please keep in mind, though, that "most important criteria" is not the same as "only criteria." Numbers only admissions means that grades and scores are the "only criteria"; essays, extracurriculars, recommendations, and so forth are not considered at all. By comparison, an admissions system that holds grades and scores as the most important can still include the other factors previously mentioned in the overall analysis. Since it includes many factors, it is holistic.</p>
<p>So holistic is OK with you as long as it's only a little bit holistic?</p>
<p>does it affect your chances if you choose not to report your race?</p>
<p>It depends on if the race would give you an advantage otherwise. For example, latinos and Native Americans have advantages in some places.</p>
<p>I personally chose to write that I'm Caucasian because otherwise my stats and ECs would make them think I'm Asian. xD</p>
<p>But I don't think choosing not to report it would have any repercussions by itself.</p>
<p>I should of not reported myself as asian but then my name would be dead give away. lol. :p</p>
<p>that's the thing...i AM asian and i have a feeling that reporting my race might hurt me, so is it better if i don't? or does it not matter?</p>
<p>It can. Some schools want to increase racial URMs to more closely match the general population. But if you're an ORM it might hurt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that's the thing...i AM asian and i have a feeling that reporting my race might hurt me, so is it better if i don't? or does it not matter?
[/quote]
Should</a> We Check the “Asian” Box on Applications? - Ask The Dean</p>
<p>You don't know what you have done dominus. You have opened the Gate of Affirmative Action Hell. Soon, fanatical combatants from both sides will come and do a meaningless, epic, sissy-fist, never-answering-the-original-question fight to an incoherent oblivion. Accusations of racism will be sling around like a decomposing skunk. The nauseous Holier-than-Thou attitude will stink up the place releasing so much stupidity that the ozone layer will collapse and we will all end up with skin-cancer. Even then, they will still manage to call each other racists and white-supremacist despite their burned-beyond-recognition skin.</p>
<p>If you deserve to go to the college it won't make a difference what your race is.</p>
<p>Sorry, "deserve" is not part of admissions considerations. Far more applicants deserve than there are seats. Selective private schools craft their classes to the mix they want.</p>
<p>it's times like these that i wish everyone was the same race (o no im turning into hitler!)</p>