<p>Yes--but there is an intrinsic advantage in being a URM no matter if you make $20k or $200k a year. Please don't try to claim that a black applicant from a $200k family is on the same footing as a white or asian one with the same income.</p>
<p>^^^
You are blending too many ideas together... If the goal is to promote diversity, then it does not make sense to compare individuals from different groups. It makes more sense to compare individuals within the same group.</p>
<p>Also, you said, "Yes--but there is an intrinsic advantage in being a URM no matter if you make $20k or $200k a year." I was wondering isn't their an "intrinsic advantage in being wealthy for all races? I mean the wealthier you are, the more likely it is that you would have had access to quality educational resources and opportunities, and thus would be in a better position to be admitted to a school like Harvard. Is that not considered an advantage?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, he doesn't use or imply the word "exclusively."
[/quote]
The poster said, "We told them that she wanted to be admitted on her abilities, not ethnicity." That most definitely implies the word, "exclusively." Look at the language and the use of the comma. It implies that considering ability and considering ethnicity are mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Must you describe everyone as "uninformed" or "ignorant" who disagrees with you? IMO, often you misinterpret what they are saying and then call them ignorant.
[/quote]
1.) Most people on this forum are uninformed.
2.) Many people on this forum are ignorant of Affirmative Action and how it works.
3.) Many people on this forum need to learn how to choose their words better. I call people out on these things so that they can learn that there are people out there who disagree with their opinions or are even offended by them. </p>
<p>Honestly, I know what Aardvark meant in his post, but I think it is important for him to realize that his opinion on Affirmative Action is controversial and that some people may be offended by the way he poorly articulated his opinion. Better to become aware of these things on an internet forum than in real life...</p>
<p>Newjack--I am afraid it is you who is blending too many ideas together. Of course wealth gives you an advantage educationally, but that was not what I was discussing. All I was saying that for exactly similar applicants (academically, in extracurriculars) from the same socioeconomic backgrounds, a black or hispanic one would be favored over a white or asian one. I only stated that because you seemed to try to refute that logic earlier.</p>
<p>"Quote:
No, he doesn't use or imply the word "exclusively." </p>
<p>The poster said, "We told them that she wanted to be admitted on her abilities, not ethnicity." That most definitely implies the word, "exclusively." Look at the language and the use of the comma. It implies that considering ability and considering ethnicity are mutually exclusive."</p>
<p>If this is really what they meant, that would mean that someone could get in with straight F's and a combined 600 SAT score simply because of their URM status. I don't think anyone in the world thinks this. Do you seriously believes this is what they meant? </p>
<p>Going back to semantics, you could state that you were admitted because of "x" if x is what pushed you from the reject pile to the admit pile. </p>
<p>Let me give an analogy. Let's say Frank Thomas says he would only want the home run record if he got it through his abilities, not steroids. Most people understand that you need to be a talented hitter before steroids could enable you to get the home run record.</p>
<p>Hi, Newjack88, </p>
<p>You might enjoy reading </p>
<p>Amazon.com:</a> The Remedy: Class, Race, And Affirmative Action: Richard D. Kahlenberg: Books </p>
<p>for some historical perspective on events that happened before you were born that influence perceptions of affirmative action today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most people who read all of the several hundred posts that have been merged together to form this thread and who follow all the external links here could learn a lot about why colleges even asking about student ethnicity is such a contentious issue and why there is much disagreement about this issue. And that would be a start toward being better informed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I was saying that for exactly similar applicants (academically, in extracurriculars) from the same socioeconomic backgrounds, a black or hispanic one would be favored over a white or asian one.
[/quote]
Is there anything wrong with this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you seriously believes this is what they meant?
[/quote]
Hmmm... looks like someone isn't reading my posts in their entirety.</p>
<p>tokenadult:
Thanks.</p>
<p>"Is there anything wrong with this?"</p>
<p>To me there is. I value diversity, however, although it may be politically incorrect, I think diversity has little to do with skin color. Ideally, it should have nothing to do with racial identity. A system that favors certain races (controlling for all other variables) only continues the idea that there is a "difference" between races at all.</p>
<p>Hey, I come from a very diverse background including Mexican and European descent, and I was wondering what I should check on the college application.</p>
<p>Does checking other work like other minorities like African Americans in that it may increase my chances at a college, or is it just considered the same as White?</p>
<p>Is it worth it to put other instead of Mexican, for example, even though that is only a small part of my ethnicity?</p>
<p>Thanks for the help.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me there is. I value diversity, however, although it may be politically incorrect, I think diversity has little to do with skin color.
[/quote]
Do you have anything to back that up? Our entire society suggests that this is not the case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ideally, it should have nothing to do with racial identity.
[/quote]
Why not?</p>
<p>Anyways, colleges look to create diversity of all types.</p>
<p>I should say that I am a firm supporter of socioeconomic affirmative action. This would still help many black and hispanic students, just not those from privileged backgrounds. Wasn't affirmative action orginially founded on the ideal creating an equal playing field for those who were not privileged? Let it do that for all.</p>
<p>The second argument you may bring up is that college affirmative action is used to create a diverse student body. I guess where I differ in opinion from you is that I fail to see how an African-American from the same background and school of a white or asian applicant brings more diversity than the white or asian student. I don't believe colleges should treat applicants in this case any differently, but all evidence seems to say that colleges would treat these applicants differently. </p>
<p>To me, diversity is about point of view and difference of opinion, not about skin color and race. Do URMs sometimes bring diversity, by my own definition? Absolutely. Do they always? Definitely not.</p>
<p>I dont think there is any question that affirmative action will kick in if you select Mexican. Unless you are something like part Native American, I'm not sure you can hope for any significant increase in chances by choosing Other instead.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I should say that I am a firm supporter of socioeconomic affirmative action. This would still help many black and hispanic students, just not those from privileged backgrounds.
[/quote]
Haha.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic based affirmative action is a horrible idea. It is unnecessary because actual educational opportunities and resources are more important than how much money a family makes. In addition, it does not promote diversity. In case you did not know, most poor people are White; thus, socioeconomic affirmative action would disproportionally benefit them at the expense of other groups and diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wasn't affirmative action orginially founded on the ideal creating an equal playing field for those who were not privileged? Let it do that for all.
[/quote]
How does that matter? Highways were initially built to serve as emergency runways for airplanes. As time elapses, intentions become irrelevant.</p>
<p>Today, affirmative action is used to promote diversity of all kinds e.g. socioeconomic, ethnic/racial, geography, gender, etc. Look up what Justice Powell had to say in the Bakke case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The second argument you may bring up is that college affirmative action is used to create a diverse student body. I guess where I differ in opinion from you is that I fail to see how an African-American from the same background and school of a white or asian applicant brings more diversity than the white or asian student. I don't believe colleges should treat applicants in this case any differently, but all evidence seems to say that colleges would treat these applicants differently.
[/quote]
Who said that African-Americans always "bring more diversity" than Asians or Whites? If this were the case, why then are qualified African Americans rejected while qualified Asians are accepted? How does your point make sense...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me, diversity is about point of view and difference of opinion, not about skin color and race. Do URMs sometimes bring diversity, by my own definition? Absolutely. Do they always? Definitely not.
[/quote]
And that's the point of holistic admissions and why qualified minorities are often rejected just like qualified nonminorities are.</p>
<p>Another book suggestion. </p>
<p>The author is a sociologist who worked in a college admission office to research his book.</p>
<p>YouTube</a> - Chris Rock about black slaves</p>
<p>Chris Rock says it all.</p>
<p>(And I say this as an Asian 1.5G'er immigrant myself...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition, it does not promote diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, because a college community 90% composed of the wealthy and all their trappings is bound to be diverse, right? (Note that wealthy != rich, a distinction based on social power that Chris Rock also makes). </p>
<p>From an economic standpoint, there is a greater increase in the MB/MC curve (in terms of social efficiency) when educational development is aimed at classes that are generally not as well-educated, compared to classes that already have a high education density. (Law of decreasing marginal utility and all.)</p>
<p>"Socioeconomic based affirmative action is a horrible idea. It is unnecessary because actual educational opportunities and resources are more important than how much money a family makes. In addition, it does not promote diversity. In case you did not know, most poor people are White; thus, socioeconomic affirmative action would disproportionally benefit them at the expense of other groups and diversity."</p>
<p>First of all, you are greatly contradicting yourself. Just a few posts ago you pointed out the great educational advantages that come with wealth. I fail to see how a black or hispanic family making $200k a year has fewer educational opportunities than a similar white family? (which it what it seems like you are implying)</p>
<p>Yes, I am aware that white people are the largest group of poor people in the US. However, you fail to notice that blacks and hispanics are much more likely (as a percentage of their population) to be from an economically disadvantaged background. So you are actually incorrect: as a percentage of each group's population, socioeconomic affirmative action would disproportionallly benefit blacks and hispanics. </p>
<p>Secondly, you bring up the concept of diversity again, and I will only offer up my opinion that as a progressive society I think we should move towards a place where different colors of skin don't necessarily = diversity. </p>
<p>"Who said that African-Americans always "bring more diversity" than Asians or Whites? If this were the case, why then are qualified African Americans rejected while qualified Asians are accepted? How does your point make sense...?"</p>
<p>Well, no one has ever said that, yet African-Americans are given an undeniable advantage in the admission process. What other reason but that assumption would account for that? Of course qualified African Americans are rejected, but I fail to see your point. It doesn't really make sense... Are you denying that African-Americans have an advantage in the admissions process before you take any other variable into account? Let's not forgot how Michigan added 20% of the points needed to be admitted to hispanic and black applicants solely because of their race.</p>
<p>At the top colleges, is admissions ever solely based on merit?</p>
<p>"At the top colleges, is admissions ever solely based on merit?"</p>
<p>Occasionally.</p>
<p>Regardless, I fail to see your point. Even if I acknowledge that college admissions is not a strict meritocracy, does that bar me from disagreeing with the use of certain factors in the process?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Socioeconomic based affirmative action is a horrible idea. It is unnecessary because actual educational opportunities and resources are more important than how much money a family makes. In addition, it does not promote diversity. In case you did not know, most poor people are White; thus, socioeconomic affirmative action would disproportionally benefit them at the expense of other groups and diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on your second sentence? I don’t understand it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As time elapses, intentions become irrelevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Intentions do not become irrelevant with time. Just ask any college president who has been forced to return a donation because the conditions of the donor were not carried out.</p>