<p>Okay so i know about under represented minorities, but my question is....</p>
<p>Is there a certain percentage one needs to be to be considered a URM?</p>
<p>for example: 25% Hispanic, 75% White....can that person be considered hispanic</p>
<p>I'm guessing there's some requirement but i just am unaware of it..thanks for the help</p>
<p>that person can be considered hispanic (1/4 is the min.)</p>
<p>HandsAcrossTime:
All I am saying is that it is not your place to judge. Honestly, keep your judgements to yourself. Know when to speak, and when not to speak. Everyone knows that being a URM can help you stand out from the pack at top schools like Harvard. But so does being a legacy, being from an under-represented state, being a female applying for an engineering major, being exceptional at an instrument, playing a varsity level sport (whether or not you are recruited), having a job throughout high school, etc.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, not all URM's are equal. There is a huge achievement gap b/w African American males and females. And between African Americans and Hispanics. And b/w Mexicans/Puerto Ricans and South Americans/Spanish within the Hispanic realm. Not all URM's will receive equal boost because not all URM's require the same boost.</p>
<p>If you're an African American male though, you're sitting pretty.</p>
<p>No one is disputing that URMs deserve to be in great schools, the only beef is they take away spots at the expense of equally hard working ORMs with similar scores, ECs, and probably faced more challenge growing up than these URMs.</p>
<p>When people complain about URM's I always think of the kid that spits in their hand while they're shaking hands at the end of a game. Stop being a poor sport and just get on with whatever else you do, if you don't like it so much tell your congressmen. Grow up, life is not fair.</p>
<p>@dank08</p>
<p>So I suppose you would not mind if I stole $200 from you and give it back to people in different amounts based on their eye color, you would not mind?</p>
<p>I am not complaining about URMs, I am complaining about the cases where tax money is used in a manner I disagree with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No one is disputing that URMs deserve to be in great schools, the only beef is they take away spots at the expense of equally hard working ORMs with similar scores, ECs, and probably faced more challenge growing up than these URMs.
[/quote]
This is sort of stupid to say. Qualified applicants are accepted "at the expense" of other qualified applicants who are rejected. Is your qualm that colleges want to promote things like <em>gasp</em> diversity so that all of their students can feel comfortable and learn to understand and appreciate each other's similarities and differences? God forbid we have diversity on college campuses.</p>
<p>Also, I'm going to bet that you don't understand how Affirmative Action works? Just in case you didn't know, Affirmative Action promotes the inclusion of under-represented groups. In terms of selective colleges, here are examples of under-represented groups: female science and math majors, males interested in nursing, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, any one from the lower middle class and below, people from the Midwest and South, etc.</p>
<p>Also, "and probably faced more challenge growing up than these URMs," what good is it to make such blanket statements like this? If you want to have a productive and informative discussion about this topic at least think before you post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not complaining about URMs, I am complaining about the cases where tax money is used in a manner I disagree with.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with Affirmative Action at selective schools? What tax money is Harvard getting?</p>
<p>Honestly guys,
1.) Quit equating college admissions with self worth.</p>
<p>2.) Actually learn what Affirmative Action and how it is applied today.</p>
<p>3.) Realize that "holistic admissions" and Affirmative Action are essentially synynomous.</p>
<p>4.) Realize that Asians are really only over-represented at elite colleges. Perhaps if Asians did not tend to apply to the same schools they would have a much easier time getting in.</p>
<p>5.) Realize that going to Harvard, Stanford, etc. are not the only ways to be successful. After all, few successful people attend highly selective schools like that. Most people just go to their state university and end up doing just fine.</p>
<p>6.) Realize that a well written essay is not the same thing as a good essay. Also, realize that good test scores probably won't make up for less than stellar essays when applying to highly selective schools. The essays are like an interview. It's your opportunity to convey who you are to the college admissions officers. It's your chance to stand out. It's your chance to put all of your achievements and credentials into context. Judging from the essays I have read on this site, many tend not to talk about themselves and who they are in their essays. Even if they do, it's a cliche topic like "the time I overcame _______." Just really mundane topics. Another thing that I noticed is that kids tend to get wrapped up in discussing their activities or making excuses that they never even talk about their personality.</p>
<p>7.) Get some dang hobbies. ECs are not the same thing as hobbies.</p>
<p>8.) Lastly, realize that the mundane path to successful admissions (Model UN, debate, math club, science club, etc.) is also the same path to unsuccessful admissions. Just do what you like and what you are good at. I honestly do not understand why kids who are not exceptional at math or science even bother to participate in math/science competitions and then expect to get into MIT. Can someone explain this? Why don't these kids go find something they are good at or can get good at instead of devoting themselves entirely to something they are mediocre at? Why are so many applicants trying to define themselves purely by through false academic achievement? (By false I mean that the achievement is more a reflection of hard work than of intelligence.) Do they not realize that, more often that not, college admissions officers can tell the difference between a "grinder" and a kid who is actually bright?</p>
<p>"What are you talking about? What does this have to do with Affirmative Action at selective schools? What tax money is Harvard getting?"</p>
<p>Don't they have to practice affirmative action for certain funding or other things? If no money is paid to the school by the government, then I have no problem with that case of affirmative action other than the fact I find it to be a ridiculous preference.</p>
<p>But URMs get such a bigger push than any other disadvantage factors such as income and even first gen. I can see someone being disadvantaged educationally for being poor. I can see someone being disadvantaged educationally for having uneducated parents. But the problem is that affluent URMs with educated parents are getting a SIGNIFICANT BOOST (and this boost is much larger than that given to the low income or other disadvantages, because of the focus on race we have as a nation and the subsequent fact that colleges want to keep their publicised racial "diversity" numbers up for good face). But this is a boost that they don't deserve. </p>
<p>What should race have to do with college admissions? Sure, if they grew up in the inner city or are immigrants, they might bring cultural diversity to the school. But the fact is the single applicants AREN'T being scrutinized individually to see how much diversity they truly bring, and the result is that upper-middle class URMs with all the advantages that Asians and whites would have are the ones being given the most advantage, at the expense of the ORM poor. In fact, I believe in one year at a highly selective college, they were lauded for having accepted more black students-- but the group they accepted less of that year was the Asian POOR, who were judged based on their racial group primarily and not the hardships they faced as low income. It's a blanket standard based on race, and I think that's silly and unreasonable. What should race have to do with your right to be educated? It's not a disadvantage in itself.</p>
<p>I think we need a truly holistic system, where race is considered as a factor but NOT over other factors, more important factors such as school quality, parental education and family status (single parent?), income, and life obstacles such as immigration or abuse. There shouldn't be a separate office for URM admissions, as there is at many top colleges. We should look at each applicant as INDIVIDUAL, not in the context of race primarily.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is not extinct and it still plays a huge role in college admissions today, especially for top schools like the Ivies. It indisputably helps URMs get into top colleges. In fact, many - though not all - URMs would not be attending Princeton or Yale or Stanford if they were Caucasian or Asian. I simply cannot understand how some people believe that AA is no longer in effect because its existence is very much apparent.</p>
<p>give me a break, diversity is overrated. wasn't michelle obama's thesis at princeton about this crap called diversity.
I said some AA deserved to be in elite schools, but not to the points where it becomes an apparent joke and slap in the face of those who works so much harder.</p>
<p>I like how everyone virtually ignored my post, that provided although a one-time scenario, evidence that contradicted the AA naysers theory.</p>
<p>^ I thought it was the best post so far. Congrats by the way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the problem is that affluent URMs with educated parents are getting a SIGNIFICANT BOOST (and this boost is much larger than that given to the low income or other disadvantages, because of the focus on race we have as a nation and the subsequent fact that colleges want to keep their publicised racial "diversity" numbers up for good face). But this is a boost that they don't deserve.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keshira, how many do you suppose are there of these wealthy advantaged URM's are there? 100, 200, 1000? If you were to take an educated guess, you would see how rediculously small the number is, especially against the total numbers of available spots at selective schools. You won't come up with that number because it would illustrate just how weak your argument is. So how many are too much? 1 person, 2, 300? I guess that it's the "principle" behind AA that upsets you and those of your ilk so much.</p>
<p>Hopefully those of you who go on to what ever college of your choice fit a history lesson or two on your way to your desired disciplines. Many of the arguments IMO, are based on ignorance or just a unwillingness to look at things from a much broader perspective. At the very least, if you chose to hold on to the belief that certain preferences are unfair based on race or whatever the preference du jour is for your generation, that you attempt to make your argument with information gathered from a broad based perspective. </p>
<p>A few nuggets to chew on for those that have concerns that their education opportunities are being encroached upon by those "less qualified".</p>
<p>This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful "reverse discrimination" suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades. "Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, while "lesser qualified" people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity. This is the kind of racist logic that people like Gratz, who now heads up the state's anti-affirmative action initiative with the financial backing of Ward Connerly, find acceptable. </p>
<p>This kind of logic also explains the effort of whites at Roger Williams University to start a "white scholarship fund," on the pretense that scholarships for students of color are unfair and place whites at a disadvantage. This, despite the unmentioned fact that about 93 percent of all college scholarship money goes to whites; despite the fact that students of color at elite and expensive colleges come from families with about half the average income of whites; despite the fact that there are scholarships for pretty much every kind of student under the sun, including children of Tupperware dealers, kids whose parents raise horses, kids who are left-handed, kids whose families descend from the founding fathers: you name it, and there's money available for it. </p>
<p>Don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings.</p>
<p>MODERATOR'S NOTE TO "urms, really." THREAD: </p>
<p>By frequently expressed request, this thread will be merged with other threads about affirmative action policies in the big scrum of the ethnic self-identification in college applications FAQ thread. To give a short answer to the OP's question, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it's unclear how much declaring an ethnic self-identification of "underrrepresented" variety results in a boost to admission probability at different colleges, because most colleges don't publish figures about their admission process in a way that would allow determing the effect of that. It is a matter of public record that when some college's admission practices were the subject of litigation, it was found that some practices resulted in a substantial advantage to some applicants from "underrepresented" groups. It is unclear today how many colleges have practices similar to those practices for their current admission cycles.</p>
<p>Good posts madville and FredBurger.</p>
<p>What was your GPA fredfredburger?</p>
<p>Private schools like Harvard, Yale, etc. are allowed to have their endowments accrue tax free, so they do in essence receive a form of Federal subsidy. With the large endowments it can be a substantial benefit. Harvard’s gained 23% for 2007 or around 5 billion dollars, increasing from 29 to 34 billion. Assume it was a mix of short term and long term gains and apply a 25% tax rate that equals around a 1.25 billion dollar government subsidy. The Senate has been looking into this recently to see if the money is being spent "properly".</p>