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

<p>MODERATOR NOTE to "A complaint against Affirmative Action" thread: </p>

<p>As several replies have already noted, this topic comes up over and over, especially at this time of the year. I'll merge this thread into the ethnic identification on college applications FAQ thread, which is posted on the usual forum where these issues are discussed. Several threads are merged together now in the FAQ thread; read carefully to figure out which replies pertain to which posts.</p>

<p>Well, if a school is going to select an applicant above someone else who is another race I think that applicant still has to be qualified. Harvard will not reject a 4.0 and 2300 white student to select a 3.0 and 1800 student because they are black or whatever other race. The point is even with AA the applicant still has to be qualified.</p>

<p>use the search feature and atleast read the wikipedia article on AA before complaining about it. </p>

<p>if you don't feel like doing that, here is the bottomline:
AA was used to increase representation of minorities in colleges, now it is used to create a racially diverse student body by allowing colleges to consider race. socioeconomic AA already exists, the issue is that poorer students do not apply to top tier schools due to financial concerns. AA helps out minorities groups that are hurt by negative stereotypes surrounding them. (all you have to do is go to a daycare to see this play out...) AA/the whole college admissions process helps out white people the most.</p>

<p>From the stats, can I conclude that if an Asian puts down "unknown" for him/her for Harvard, s/he will have 1% more chance? (as in being categorised into that category which has slightly more chance! lol.)</p>

<p>Colleges don't USUALLY publish the data that allow an analysis of how much, if any, of an advantage in admission is gained by self-reporting one ethnic affiliation or another. Some researchers have received confidential access to such data in some cases. Sometimes court cases have made such data part of the public record. Like most aspects of higher education in the United States, this probably varies from one college to another.</p>

<p>To you'llsee...
So, what would you propose? Are Americans/whoever supposed to weep and cry tears of utter remorse for actions we, at present, are not responsible for? A lot of people would argue that they don't want the "Privileged Majority" (as you might view it), to give them a "leg-up" because it's degrading and a weak crutch.
Besides, would you also support digging into every single AA's [I'm assuming you mean AA--you're talking about slavery and stuff, yeah? (: ] heritage to find out which African tribe sold the otha brothas out to the white slave traders? I mean, historically, that's kinda what happened in many cases.</p>

<p>Er, about the general question of Affirmative Action, I'd say it's a load of crap for many of the same reasons that many have stated in this forum (notably Obsessed mom and the smooth voice of reason--Tokenadult) in more eloquent words than I could have expressed.
I just don't like to see that little question #14 on the PSAT/NMSQT reg form that says, "ARE YOU AFRICAN AMERICAN?" A specific question for them. Nothing saying, though. (:</p>

<p>As to my own applications, I checked the applicable boxes. I'm confident in my qualifications, and if any college adcom thinks it's best to put me aside because of it, then I wouldn't want to study there anyway.
But whatevs, I'm in already, so y'allls can deal with it any way you want, y0'. :D</p>

<p>From Post #90:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you are an URM, then it is pretty clearly in your benefit to identify that fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>"[P]retty clearly" if the applicant is myopic.</p>

<p>Does it benefit the applicant to perpetuate the (mis)notion of 'minority' -- worse yet, the (mis)notion of an 'Under Represented Minority' -- by self-identifying as such?</p>

<p>I'm hopeful that the "Unknown" applicant is viewed as: </p>

<ul>
<li><p>One that brings an out-of-the-box/farsighted approach to the institution</p></li>
<li><p>An individual that refuses to perpetuate 'race' and its derivative 'racism'</p></li>
<li><p>An individual that is living Dr. King's dream...asking that he/she be judged by character and not skin color</p></li>
<li><p>Hueman</p></li>
</ul>

<p>If you are Spanish, can you put that you are Hispanic? Because Spaniards are technically European.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Persons</a> of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000</p>

<p>^ So since my mom was born and raised in Spain, I come from Hispanic roots?</p>

<p>Actually, colleges have different specifications for what type of race you are, haha. Essentially, your race can be twisted in different ways. Some colleges count "North Africans" (Egypt, Libya, Morocco) as White, but technically you are still African American. A person directly from Spain would be considered European American, aka White. But if family are Spanish settlers that have lived in South America, then you become Latin American.</p>

<p>My original thread was merged with this one. In the end, I didn't include my distant Native American heritage on the ethnicity box. USC specifies I must have community or tribal ties, and I have neither. I'm not sure if they would have asked me to prove it or not, but I don't want to go through the trouble either way. I applied as a Chinese Asian American, and South American (Argentina). This might help me, or might not.</p>

<p>And damn, I found out you can change your CommonApp tooo late. I had no idea you could make multiple copies... Then why the hell do they lock your application when you can just make a new one anyway??? How are people supposed to find this stuff out???</p>

<p>Well, my aunt is from a North African country despite her religion. When my cousin applied (and went) to H biz school/ Dart, she wrote African down on her form. I dislike the classification of races and I like this whole "race unknown" business.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"North Africans" (Egypt, Libya, Morocco) as White, but technically you are still African American.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If colleges are reporting to the United States federal government (and they all have to, by law, which is why these questions appear on college application forms), they should follow the federal definitions as best they can. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000 </p>

<p>Students aren't required to say anything at all about their ethnic affiliations, but if they do, they ought to be honest about them.</p>

<p>I know that you have probably heard this argument before, but I had to say it with my own twist. I believe colleges should get rid of AA and replace it with a form of socio-economic status acceptance policies. I will explain. Also, remember, this is all hypothetical, but you should get my point.</p>

<p>Scenario 1:</p>

<p>Let's pretend that there is a Caucasian student and a Hispanic student at the same high school. We shall call this High School XYZ. High School XYZ is highly competitive, and the surrounding neighborhood is wealthy. All the students that go there are of upper class. Now, both students decide to apply to, Prestige University. The Caucasian student has a slightly higher GPA and rank than the Hispanic student. Both of them show great essays, teacher recommendations, and EC's, however the Caucasian student also has a higher SAT score by about 200 points. </p>

<p>In today's college admissions process, assuming everything was equal besides the test scores, the Hispanic student would get in. Why? Because he is underrepresented and not because of his stats. He isn't poor, since they go to the same upper class school, so why does he get in? Underrepresentation. I do not believe that your race should be a sole basis of your acceptance, but that your socio-economic status (wealth/school status) should be.</p>

<p>Scenario 2:</p>

<p>The Hispanic student at High school XYZ still applies to Prestige University. Another student from High School ABC applies to Prestige University as well. This student is a poor Caucasian student at High School ABC, which is miserable in academic opportunities and in wealth status. Many of the opportunities that the Caucasian student could receive at a better high school, such as High School XYZ, do not exist. Yet, the Caucasian student at High School ABC has the same applicant profile (test scores, GPA, EC's, etc.) as the Caucasian from High School XYZ.</p>

<p>In reality, who gets in? Still it is the Hispanic student because of his underrepresentation, though the Caucasian student at High School ABC used more of his resources and is at a disadvantage. </p>

<p>Conclusion:</p>

<p>Neither of these scenarios end fairly. Scenario 1 turns down a more qualified applicant for another applicant because of race. Scenario 2 turns down a more qualified student with less opportunities (poor+ bad high school) for another student because of race.</p>

<p>Solution:
Here is how it should work, IMO. In the context of one's high school and one's socio-economic (wealth) status. If there is a poor Hispanic student and a poor Caucasian student, the better qualified applicant (whomever so) should get in. If there are two rich students at great high schools, the same process applies. However, if there is a rich student who is equally qualified as a poor student, the poor student should get in, regardless of race. This process will ensure that more disadvantaged students get into college on the basis of their wealth and opportunities rather than their race. A rich minority student should not have any greater chance into college than a rich Caucasian student. </p>

<p>This system solves two problems:
1. For all the kids who say, "At MY high school (Prestige University) accepted only the URM's," there would be an equality spread throughout the school so that all the applicants from THAT particular school were looked at in context of the school and not the nation. This will raise the importance of class rank (which I believe to be a good thing). Now, all the students at High School XYZ would not be looked at by race, but by stats and opportunities (wealth). Even if a minority at High School XYZ is not as rich as many of the other students at High School XYZ, this would not hold enough weight to push that minority student above the other applicants, because their opportunities are nearly equal. The only real difference in wealth may reflect in test scores because the poorer student could not hire a tutor (though all wealthy students don't hire tutors, this is hypothetical). </p>

<ol>
<li> The "best of the best" in every environment get in. Race will not be a factor, but socio-economic status and high school context will be. This would put more weight on the class rank and grades than test scores, which would give an advantage to the more qualified students at a particular high school.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Short version:
1. Put more weight on grades and class rank (in context of the individual high school), and less weight on test scores (-100-200 SAT points).
2. Put more weight on the high school's opportunities.
3. Put slightly more weight on an applicant's wealth.</p>

<p>I know I said a lot, sorry about that. Say what you must, I want to hear other peoples' opinions on this issue and if they think it is a good idea. Or, give suggestions on how it could be made better.</p>

<p>Agree - Ideal, but wouldn't this end up costing the colleges more in finaid?</p>

<p>This is what UCs like Berkeley do instead of AA. It's a nice proxy.</p>

<p>Enough Already.</p>

<p>Yes; this needs to be done. Sadly, the system doesn't work like this.</p>

<p>I agree...</p>

<p>I swear there should be a sub-forum for Affirmative action.</p>