Fastest-Growing Ethnic Category at Great Colleges: "Race Unknown"

Applying to College
481

<p>
[quote]
For example, the group of people with IQs below 100 has, on average, lower standards of living. Is it society's place to aid these people by allowing them easier access to top universities? If not, why?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have not answered my question. Why not some kind of intelligence-based AA? Surely those with lower IQs are under-represented in elite colleges and in positions of power, due to unfortunate circumstances outside their control.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...the tallest quarter of the population has a median wage that is more than 13 percent higher than that of the shortest quarter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Would this rather significant wage difference not indicate a lower standard of living for short people? How else do you define "standard of living?"</p>

482

<p>
[quote]
You have not answered my question. Why not some kind of intelligence-based AA? Surely those with lower IQs are under-represented in elite colleges and in positions of power, due to unfortunate circumstances outside their control.

[/quote]

Ok, you're not being serious, right?</p>

<p>Let's use our reasoning skills to dispose of the nonsensical hypothetical example. What are the purpose of grades and test scores? I think I know. They serve as proxies to assess how intelligent an applicant is. Do colleges care about grades and test scores? Yep. String the two conclusions together and you come up with, "colleges care if an applicant is intelligent." Hmmm, I wonder why colleges would care if an applicant is intelligent? Maybe it's because the whole point of going to college is to learn, which, I know this is pretty crazy, requires intelligence. Colleges know that the material students are expected to learn in college is difficult so they admit individuals whom they feel are intelligent enough to learn the material successfully.</p>

<p>I'm honestly shocked by how nonsensical your example is. What societal good would we be promoting by giving unintelligent people positions of power? Your argument does not make sense in reality. Why would you give people with low IQ's positions of power when many are not even held responsible for their actions in the court of law?</p>

<p>Anyways, you are still missing the larger argument in favor of Affirmative Action, which is that it allows for greater diversity. Your reluctance to at least address the main argument in favor of Affirmative Action and your tendency to distract from it by utilizing petty arguments suggest that you do not have a reason for opposing diversity.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Would this rather significant wage difference not indicate a lower standard of living for short people? How else do you define "standard of living?"

[/quote]

Where's the evidence of discrimination against short people? </p>

<p>First of all it said that the disparity between tall and short White males is "comparable" to disparity between certain races and gender. "Comparable" is vague and does not suggest any sort of magnitude. I would bet that disparity between races and genders are more significant.</p>

<p>From the footnote (It's not clear if this is just based on US statistics or if it includes British statistics too):

[quote]
Correcting for differences in family background and region of residence, we estimate the black-white wage gap to be approximately 15% among full time male workers in the NLSY. Similar analysis
indicates that the male-female wage gap is approximately 20% among white full-time workers in both
the NCDS and NLSY.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just for some more perspective,

[quote]
The study, based on data from some 2,300 families during the past three decades, shows a black family's income in 2004 was a little more than half that of a similar white family's.

[/quote]

Income</a> Disparity Persists Between Blacks, Whites : NPR</p>

<p>Also, do not forget the obvious socio-economic reasons (nutrition, etc.) that would play into this. If you are poor your less likely to have adequate resources to allow you to reach your full height. In addition, your less likely to have access to quality education, your family life may not be conducive for learning, etc. All of those things would lead to shorter people making less money.</p>

<p>Moreover, the study does not account for education, which if it did, would probably nullify the results since education is obviously a more important factor. Also, the data maybe skewed because a majority of big income earners are involved in some form of sales that require things like confidence, charisma, etc. that a taller person is more likely to have due to nature.</p>

<p>P.S.
I would prefer to discuss meaningful things from here on out, please.</p>

483

<p>
[quote]
So, all whites are racists? Great to know, thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You asked me to use WHITE rather than non-URM, so you actually specified based on a racial category. As per your definition from Merium-Webster and according to anthropology as a discipline, you are categorizing what I assert as fitting into a folk classification that non-URMs (whites) have created. It is thus, YOU who has JUDGED my position as being racist, even as I 've pointed out that RACE is a socio-cultural term that IS NOT substantiated by biological science.</p>

<p>And, Obama's timely speech on race is perhaps better at explaining how race affects the gap between the social constructs of race categories.</p>

<p>Here's the link:
msnbc.com</a> Video Player</p>

<p>That is far more elegant and articulate than many of my posts.</p>

<p>Peace, out.</p>

484

<p>
[quote]
You have not answered my question. Why not some kind of intelligence-based AA? Surely those with lower IQs are under-represented in elite colleges and in positions of power, due to unfortunate circumstances outside their control.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, you've just limited the argument by excluding all the other colleges that are less competitive and which to varying degrees address those such applicants. There are also exceptions to time limits on SAT tests and services which address most physically-challenged (and emotionally-challenged) individuals to make them more competitive, even for a few college one would consider elite.</p>

485

<p>
[quote]
Hmmm, I wonder why colleges would care if an applicant is intelligent? Maybe it's because the whole point of going to college is to learn, which, I know this is pretty crazy, requires intelligence. Colleges know that the material students are expected to learn in college is difficult so they admit individuals whom they feel are intelligent enough to learn the material successfully.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. I'm glad we are in agreement that that admissions should care first and foremost about how well students can handle the academic material they will be presented with in college. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"Comparable" is vague and does not suggest any sort of magnitude. I would bet that disparity between races and genders are more significant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
...we estimate the black-white wage gap to be approximately 15% among full time male workers in the NLSY.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you don't think a 13% wage difference between tall and short people is on a comparable order of magnitude as a 15% wage difference between white and black workers? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, the data maybe skewed because a majority of big income earners are involved in some form of sales that require things like confidence, charisma, etc. that a taller person is more likely to have due to nature.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes! These unfortunate short people are disadvantaged from birth because their physical stature lends itself to a lack of intangibles such as confidence, charisma, etc. Surely we must correct this inequity by allowing them greater access to elite education, until the height distribution is "balanced" in positions of higher power. </p>

<p>FYI: Heightism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>I just don't understand why race deserves special consideration in college admissions, and gender deserves special consideration in college admissions, and height does not deserve special consideration in college admissions. For that matter, if colleges are going out of their way to consider circumstances of birth that have absolutely no correlation with academic performance, why not take it a step further and tip the playing field in favor of those with slightly lower IQ who have had to work that much harder to get where they are? Those with lower grades who simply find it harder to concentrate than their peers? How far do we go in the name of equality, and where do we stop? I am not being facetious here. This is the root of the philosophical difficulty I have with AA, and I'd appreciate if one of you could address it.</p>

486

<p>
[quote]
Would this rather significant wage difference not indicate a lower standard of living for short people? How else do you define "standard of living?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it would as a statistical measure. And, if the lack of height does make it more difficult to have a decent 'standard of living', then they should be assisted, whether it is with respect to job placement, health care, etc...</p>

487

<p>Hi, madville, I just searched in Google for the book title you mentioned above, and the third Google result was an interesting article </p>

<p>The</a> Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article </p>

<p>about an issue I'm somewhat personally familiar with from my professional school student days. I think the article's comment that "The problem is that the admissions officer's job is to enroll students, not to draw the risks of failure to their attention" gets at part of the problem here.</p>

488

<p>
[quote]
I just don't understand why race deserves special consideration in college admissions, and gender deserves special consideration in college admissions, and height does not deserve special consideration in college admissions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It does, if one falls outside the normal distribution. Thus, tall basketball players and little people sometimes, in holistic admissions, are considered but for different reasons.</p>

489

<p>
[quote]
For that matter, if colleges are going out of their way to consider circumstances of birth that have absolutely no correlation with academic performance...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, the problem is that a lot happens in the 17+ years before college that affect achievement, income, educational, and extracurricular activities after birth. This includes how the majority treats those that do not fit into the norms they define. That is where the gap is developed, since we are one species.</p>

<p>
[quote]
why not take it a step further and tip the playing field in favor of those with slightly lower IQ who have had to work that much harder to get where they are?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, there are many colleges that address physically- and emotionally-challenged students by ensuring access if they so choose.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Where do we stop? I am not being facetious here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure...when individual college applicants and their parents stop being competitive and highly self-interested, and there isn't such a large push towards an elite (also socio-culturally defined) education-whatever that means? Or, a large demographic shift or reduction in the number of HS graduates that are applying to colleges (a trend that will start the next admissions cycle and ease in 2015).</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the root of the philosophical difficulty I have with AA, and I'd appreciate if one of you could address it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The difficulty comes because we choose to equate race (a socially constructed term) with a biological distinction. And, when we do not consider that being labeled a certain way as an out-group does have real implications to how one is treated in society for the 17+ years before college. That is my philosophical problem with race-blind admissions and anti-AA proponents. The idea that society (and the majority) will not act on their concept of race (based on folk classifications that they have defined in opposition to biological reality) to maintain power seems unlikely to end.</p>

490

<p>A good read would be:</p>

<p>Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Tatum
The Big Test by LeMann
Conformity and Conflict by Spradley and McCurdy
The Other Side of the River
The Promised Land</p>

491

<p>There are perhaps a couple of threads at the same time here, but back to the hypothetical about the business club that sets a quota to ensure that "at least" 4 black businesspeople will be amont the 20 members. Fabrizio says:</p>

<p>"There's nothing wrong with your club having black businessmen as members. There may be something wrong if you designed the club such that there are designated slots for black businessmen that are not open to others. By guaranteeing that black businessmen are included, you are excluding non-black businessmen. If you have x slots reserved for black businessmen, then there are x slots that non-black businessmen cannot fill and therefore are excluded from."</p>

<p>Yes, they are excluded, but you still don't explain what's wrong with that. You seem to think that it's by definition wrong. But I've said that I want to have at least a representative sample of black businesspeople in my club because I want to enhance networking between the black and white business communities. Why can't that reason (or some other reason, if you don't like that one) justify my quota system?</p>

492

<p>
[quote]
Yes, they are excluded, but you still don't explain what's wrong with that. You seem to think that it's by definition wrong. But I've said that I want to have at least a representative sample of black businesspeople in my club because I want to enhance networking between the black and white business communities. Why can't that reason (or some other reason, if you don't like that one) justify my quota system?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, you want to "enhance networking between the black and white business communities." To achieve this, you intend to ensure that you will have some minimum level of black businessmen. That is, you are "assur[ing]...some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race," which is discrimination for its own sake and is forbidden by the Constitution.</p>

<p>The entire quotation from Justice Powell is as follows:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids. E.g., Loving v. Virginia, supra at 11; McLaughlin v. Florida, supra at 198; Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483<a href="1954">/u</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So, why can't your reason justify your quota system? It's discrimination.</p>

<p>I wager that you're unconvinced, which wouldn't be surprising because I do not have a strong grasp of law. The simplest and least convincing answer I could have given you would be, "Quotas are illegal." But, had I given you that, I would not have told you why they were illegal. It is my understanding that they are illegal because they are inherently discriminatory, and thus un-Constitutional.</p>

493

<p>Newjack88,</p>

<p>
[quote]

No, Justice Powell appeared to mean that Affirmative Action cannot be directly justified as a policy to address historic discrimination. If this is not the case, then why did Justice Powell applaud Harvard's Affirmative Action policy, which, ultimately, is addressing historic discrimination?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That would be your understanding of Harvard's affirmative action policy ca. 1978. They did not claim to be addressing historic discrimination. Rather, they claimed to want differing viewpoints and gave "A farm boy from Idaho..." as an example.</p>

<p>
[quote]

...people still would say that or something similar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I said, somebody could still say "he only got in because of race," but he would have no basis whatsoever. None of those excuses you gave as examples are as insidious in nature as a race-related comment is. "He only got in because of race" suggests total inferiority. The other excuses don't even come close to that suggestion. Furthermore, the only way this white student could know about those things is if he, gasp, actually talked to his black peer...</p>

494

<p>"That is, you are "assur[ing]...some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race," which is discrimination for its own sake and is forbidden by the Constitution."</p>

<p>I posit that your answer (and maybe Justice Powell's, as well) is a tautology: Discrimination is bad because it's discrimination. Besides, I'm not asking you a question about law--I'm asking about ethics. My club is private, and I can legally exclude all blacks or whites if I want to. But rather than have an all-white club (which in this hypothetical would be the result if I apply objective membership criteria to all applicants), I've decided to set aside a number of slots for black members. Is it unethical for me to do that, and if so why? Do you argue that there is no motivation for doing this that could overcome your objections to discrimination? Note that I have no animus against white people--I don't even know what 16 white people will be the most qualified.</p>

495

<p>IsleBoy,</p>

<p>
[quote]
You asked me to use WHITE rather than non-URM, so you actually specified based on a racial category. As per your definition from Merium-Webster and according to anthropology as a discipline, you are categorizing what I assert as fitting into a folk classification that non-URMs (whites) have created. It is thus, YOU who has JUDGED my position as being racist, even as I 've pointed out that RACE is a socio-cultural term that IS NOT substantiated by biological science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I did ask you to use 'white' instead of 'non-URM majority' because the latter phrase is so unnecessarily convoluted.</p>

<p>What did you originally write, anyway?</p>

<p>
[quote]

That is, whites assert that there IS a difference in qualifications based on outward appearances which manifests itself in different treatment within society for "Blacks", "Whites", "Latinos/as", et al even when there is no biological basis for the discrimination and prejudice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The assertion that differences in qualifications are based on OUTWARD appearances as opposed to inward achievements is racism, plain and simple. In context, you were not talking about looks, hair color, weight, and so forth. In context, you were talking about race. Who did you attribute this assertion to? Some whites? No, you attributed it to all whites. You said all whites assert that such differences are the result of external appearances (i.e. race). Thus, you called all whites racists.</p>

<p>Oh, I agree that there is no biological basis for race. But, that doesn't stop those who believe there is a basis from acting on their belief in prejudiced ways. I hope your last sentence doesn't suggest that racism doesn't exist because race doesn't exist.</p>

496

<p>
[quote]
But rather than have an all-white club (which in this hypothetical would be the result if I apply objective membership criteria to all applicants), I've decided to set aside a number of slots for black members. Is it unethical for me to do that, and if so why? Do you argue that there is no motivation for doing this that could overcome your objections to discrimination? Note that I have no animus against white people--I don't even know what 16 white people will be the most qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why would your club be all-white if you applied objective, uniform criteria to all applicants? You won't be able to find a single black businessman who stands out as a strong candidate for membership?</p>

<p>Anyway, if you're talking about ethics instead of law, I'm not going to discuss this with you because I have no formal training in ethics from an academic perspective (i.e. I don't know what I'm talking about.) Our discussion would pretty much lose all objectivity; there would be little room for positive statements.</p>

497

<p>I present, for your entertainment, the following imagined conversation, based on the business club hypothetical:
Joe: I'm thinking about starting a club for business owners in town. My idea is to have 20 members, and to ask the 20 sole proprietors who employ the most people.
Jim: If you do that, you'll have only white members. I happen to know that although there are quite a few black-owned businesses in town, the largest of them has only about six employees, and there are 30 or more white-owned businesses that have more.
Joe: Really? That's a problem, then, because one of my goals was to increase networking between the black and white business communities, which I think would both benefit from better cooperation and understanding.
Jim: Well, you could set a quota, and let in the four or five largest black business owners.
Joe: Gosh, I hate to do that. Some people will say it's discrimination, and some white business owner might complain.
Jim: Well, you could change your criteria--perhaps look for the business owners that have done the most to help the community.
Joe: But that's kind of subjective, isn't it?
Jim: Well, yes, but it allows to you to take into consideration that the black business owners have fewer resources, and that they may help the community in ways different from the white business owners.
Joe: Yes, I see...
Jim: And I suppose you could also ask them to write an essay...</p>

<p>Moral: if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, calling it a duck doesn't make it any more or less ethical.</p>

498

<p>
[quote]
That would be your understanding of Harvard's affirmative action policy ca. 1978. They did not claim to be addressing historic discrimination. Rather, they claimed to want differing viewpoints and gave "A farm boy from Idaho..." as an example.

[/quote]

True. When I made my comment I was only thinking about race since that's what we've been talking about for a majority of this thread. That still does not change anything, though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As I said, somebody could still say "he only got in because of race," but he would have no basis whatsoever. None of those excuses you gave as examples are as insidious in nature as a race-related comment is. "He only got in because of race" suggests total inferiority. The other excuses don't even come close to that suggestion. Furthermore, the only way this white student could know about those things is if he, gasp, actually talked to his black peer...

[/quote]

No one has the right to belittle the achievements of another person; it's just not something decent people do. And I disagree, all of the comments are attempts to establish that the White student is superior to the African American student.</p>

499

<p>Quite a few posts ago, I promised that sometime I would relate the story that got me thinking about the issue of "race" classifications as they appear in the United States. I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on CC. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement. </p>

<p>One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern white parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes") and made me aware of a society in which people didn't all get along, which is the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest. </p>

<p>It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up. </p>

<p>One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking. </p>

<p>I think one of the most effective tactics during the toughest years of the civil rights movement was when a black person would stand in a public place with a sign on saying "I am a man." Really, it's that simple. To buy into the idea that "racial" categories make other people a different kind of people is to buy into the worldview of the segregationists. I am a human being, and you are a human being, and everyone else applying to your favorite college is a human being, and every member of the college admission committee is a human being, and we all have a lot more in common than we have in distinction. It's a radical idea, but it's a correct idea. Alas, I don't remember our visitor Henry's family name, or I would Google him up and thank him for getting me to think in the most concrete way possible about whether I acknowledge the humanity and individuality of all my fellow human beings. It is from this perspective that I am glad that there are many college applicants who decline the opportunity to self-report an ethnic affiliation and many colleges that admit many such students. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059891389-post327.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059891389-post327.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Thirty-nine years ago, when my fifth-grade class received that class visitor, I would never have imagined that people would still take "race" so seriously today. (Indeed, that same fifth grade class I was in prepared a time capsule with predictions of the year 2001, which was opened that year, and in the time capsule can be found my prediction that "interracial" marriages would increase--I am part of one--and that people would learn to get over racial classifications. I guess we are still working on that, more slowly and less surely than I had thought we would.) Better late than never. </p>

<p>I have referred to international comparisons in several posts above, because of course the classifications of ethnic groups used in the United States are essentially fictional, and don't match the classifications used in other countries. But it is a cultural and historical universal that wherever general government policies become ethnic-conscious, the citizenry becomes more ethnic-conscious, and ultimately inter-ethnic violence becomes much worse. The long civil war in Sri Lanka (among "Asian" ethnic groups that most Americans would be unable to distinguish), the former civil war in Lebanon (among "white" people by the United States Census classifications), the genocide in Rwanda (among "black" people), the disintegration and genocide in Yugoslavia ("the land of the south Slavs," who all look alike even to other white people), and other troubling examples are why I don't think it is good public policy to attempt to classify people officially by ethnic categories. You can fill out your college self-identification form however you like (but please don't lie), but please don't insist that such questions on college application forms exist for all time. Let's start calling Henry Henry, and calling our neighbors and fellow citizens our neighbors and fellow citizens.</p>

500

<p>tokenadult:
I agree with most of your post. However, I found your comparing the Affirmative Action policies practiced by universities in the United States to the Affirmative Action policies practiced in various countries like Rwanda a bit disturbing. The policies in the Rwanda required that certain government positions were filled by members of certain ethnic groups. I believe, and history confirms, that extending Affirmative Action policies to government positions or any position of power is so controversial that any good that comes from such a policy will be heavily outweighed by the bad that comes from it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
To buy into the idea that "racial" categories make other people a different kind of people is to buy into the worldview of the segregationists.

[/quote]

Yes, in the abstract. But, in the context of the United States today, being born a certain "race" will, undoubtly, alter your life experiences significantly.
Thus, being born a certain "race" will influence a person's world view. Nevertheless, I do agree that people should gradually move towards doing away with "racial" categories. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Let's start calling Henry Henry, and calling our neighbors and fellow citizens our neighbors and fellow citizens.

[/quote]

I agree. The way we get there, though, is through promoting diversity. People will not be able to understand that stereotypes about other races are not true until they genuinely interact with people of other races to see for themselves that those stereotypes are not true.</p>