<p>You can record whatever your family name is without the admission committee being able to know for sure what your ethnicity is. My children's family name matches their ethnicity quite poorly, as it reflects only a small part of my ancestry, and an even smaller part of theirs.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, after speaking with a whole host of folks who got into top colleges, some getting into the really top ones and some not, here is the conclusion:</p>
<p>theoretically, ceteris paribus, if the athletic prowess, artistic talent, academic aptitude, leadership experience and potential, community involvement, and personal character were equally persuasive, the favoured minority wins out.</p>
<p>here is how i observed it really works: the more intelligent, inquisitive, athletic, artistic, whatever you want to put it bloke (white or asian, male), at a certain school, with other people applying to the same college, doesn't get in. the (way) lesser person at another school, say in the same school district/municipality/town, where no other fellow applies for the same college, if she was of a certain ethnic or gender background, gets in and takes that local slot. thus the colleges get diversity.</p>
<p>and legally, i am pretty sure the bloke can claim (unconstitutional) racism/sexism.</p>
<p>equality doesn't mean bringing down the more competitive ones so everyone is equal. equality, where some are more, to quote Roosevelt, equal than others, is sheer inequality. here, some are clearly more equal than others.</p>
<p>Another topic I've never seen before. </p>
<p>Sleep it off.</p>
<p>So you just want to go to school with the best candidates? I understand that. However, schools, since Brown v. Board of Education, were never desegregated in the United States. Legally, yes, they were. However, the split between white schools and minority schools is more drastic now than it was pre-desegregation. </p>
<p>Why? White flight (and with it tax revenue flight). White people left urban areas in droves starting in the suburbanization of the 50s and 60s. The result is schools that were almost abandoned and operating below financial capacity. The legacy of these schools, as mentioned above, is very visible to this day.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that college adcoms are gatekeepers to the middle class. Going to college, especially a top school, is often permanently life changing. What schools are trying to do is make their college a representation of the population - not the populations ills and mistakes. Also, remember that in admissions POTENTIAL is a consideration. If you went to a nice white school with well-educated teachers in a wealthy school system, well, great. If the black kid from Utah went to a so-so school with a poor track record and shows promise on the same level as kids from your school ... don't you think that says a great deal? Perhaps that he's overcome the stigma and the shortcomings of his program and life situation only to be successful?</p>
<p>You are not alone in your opinion, trust me. However, If colleges only base admissions on grades, scores, and etc, you would completely right. It is definitely possible that maybe the URM had a better essay or maybe had more personality, goals, or ambition. It just sounds like to me (no offense) that peopple who hold your opinion are just making excuses for their inadequacy. By the way, most colleges have fewer than 20 percent minorities, not including Asians (I did not include them because you didnt).</p>
<p>"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" - Chief Justice Roberts on affirmative action. I'm with you, sf.</p>
<p>If people didn't act in a wrong and hurtful manner towards minorities of the past in the first place, this wouldn't be happening.</p>
<p>Deal with it.</p>
<p>Your "evidence" is shoddy and unconvincing, and so is your understanding of affirmative action.</p>
<p>Lots of whites/Asians and males like to whine about that woman or minority from their school who got in over them was obviously inferior. I find it just as likely that the whiners have an inflated opinion of their own merit, and need an excuse as to why they didn't get in.</p>
<p>There's hardly a shortage of whites, Asians, and males at the top colleges.</p>
<p>My own thoughts: I dislike quotas and that sort of thing (unless we're talking about a school whose stated goal is to reflect community demographics, or something). I agree with taking certain factors that disproportionately affect certain demographic groups into account, e.g. stereotype threat. I agree with taking circumstances into account, such as applicants overcoming prejudice, coming from poor, underperforming school districts, etc. And I don't mind "If we can't decide between two [or more] applicants based on merit, use contribution to demographic diversity as a tie-breaker."</p>
<p>Should people be punished for the sins of their forefathers?</p>
<p>In any case, affirmative action helps give a leg up to those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds...I think it's been useful to help level the playing field, but perhaps in a few years it should be struck down; enough reparations have been made, and things should be made truly equal now.</p>
<p>That said, one day when I'm rich and famous, I'll establish a gigantic scholarship fund for white males...it would be hilarious. (Especially since I'm asian).</p>
<p>Read the thread-opening post, now that the thread posted recently has been merged into the main FAQ thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, schools, since Brown v. Board of Education, were never desegregated in the United States. Legally, yes, they were. However, the split between white schools and minority schools is more drastic now than it was pre-desegregation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it is very important not to cheapen what the word “segregation” means. As Justice Clarence Thomas said, “In the context of public schooling, segregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to ‘carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race.’” This is the legal definition you alluded to. We must realize that this and only this connotes segregation lest we trivialize the struggles of those who came before us.</p>
<p>The “split” you speak of is not segregation. Rather it is racial imbalance, which Justice Thomas defines as “the failure of a school district's individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large.” That is no where near as evil as forbidding students to attend public schools based on race. It is not segregation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact of the matter is that college adcoms are gatekeepers to the middle class. Going to college, especially a top school, is often permanently life changing. What schools are trying to do is make their college a representation of the population - not the populations ills and mistakes. Also, remember that in admissions POTENTIAL is a consideration. If you went to a nice white school with well-educated teachers in a wealthy school system, well, great. If the black kid from Utah went to a so-so school with a poor track record and shows promise on the same level as kids from your school ... don't you think that says a great deal? Perhaps that he's overcome the stigma and the shortcomings of his program and life situation only to be successful?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>“Representation of the population” is nothing more than feel-good language for quotas.</p>
<p>Minnesota has had statewide funding equalization among all school districts since the 1970s (which was called the "Minnesota miracle" at the time). The most underperforming (academically) districts in Minnesota are actually some of the best funded on a per-pupil basis. The rather complicated issue of getting K-12 schools to perform better for pupils of all ethnicities is a distinct issue from what admission policies colleges should set for graduates of K-12 schooling. </p>
<p>See </p>
<p><a href="http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.act.org/news/data/07/pdf/National2007.pdf</a> </p>
<p>(section III, especially) for some of the educational disparities colleges have to face when deciding whom to admit to college-level academic programs. It would be a very good idea to improve K-12 education in general for pupils of all ethnic backgrounds.</p>
<p>Is there a option of Middle Eastern on the application? Like someone is from the countries of Syria, lebanon, iran, iraq,ect. </p>
<p>If not, what would Middle easterns be considered?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what would Middle easterns be considered?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>White. Read the thread-opening post carefully for the answer to that frequently asked question. Of course, if you don't think of yourself as white, as many people of Iranian, Kurdish, Arab, Azeri, etc. ancestry do not, then don't mark any category at all.</p>
<p>I am not just saying pure scores. Nobody is. A person is more than just scores.</p>
<p>I play varsity sports. I play music professionally. I am a school business club leader. And I edit the school newspaper.</p>
<p>I am hardly the definition of the scores-only flabby bookworm kid. And NOR ARE MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED IN THIS MANNER.</p>
<p>My concern is not whether it is right or wrong. Moral questions interest me not.</p>
<p>My concern is that it is ILLEGAL. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. however you want to put it. For all I care, a school could do something theoretically pretty immoral in its inequality (like taking in folks who are gonna play on the school football team, or folks who enlarge the endowment) but there is nothing to be done, because it does not transgress the letter of the law. Law does not provide for equality on the basis of wealth or athleticism.</p>
<p>The law, however, does provide for the non-discrimination on the bases of Race and Sex. If it was just immoral, I wouldn't whine about it. Let no one cast the first stone.</p>
<p>But the law, in this case, has already cast that stone. It has declared what colleges are doing ostensibly for diversity, wrong. This is no more a moral or philosophical matter. It is a matter of legality and fundamental rights.</p>
<p>I am just curious, why they haven't been prosecuted yet.</p>
<p>The fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution applies to state government entities and guarantees "equal protection of the laws." So far when cases have been brought against state universities, the state universities have generally lost if they tried to defend race-conscious admission policies. The most recent case before the Supreme Court (which I know other participants on this thread know well) suggested a way that states could be vague about what they are doing to escape legal challenge. Some states have had state initiatives directly addressed to the issue of ethnic preferences in college admission, </p>
<p>Affirmative</a> Action Foes Push Ballot Initiatives </p>
<p>and when those initiatives have passed, even state university policies approved by the United States Supreme Court have had to change. There is still a lot of litigation ahead on this issue.</p>
<p>"But the law, in this case, has already cast that stone. It has declared what colleges are doing ostensibly for diversity, wrong. This is no more a moral or philosophical matter. It is a matter of legality and fundamental rights."</p>
<p>Hummunuh what now? The Supreme Court said very clearly that schools may take race into consideration for purposes of admissions diversity. Quotas, no; race awareness, yes. Even public schools. What law are you referring to?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please keep in mind that last year the Supreme Court utterly rejected racial balancing as a compelling state interest in Parents Involved.</p>
<p>I would appreciate people referring to Supreme Court case holdings citing the cases they are referring to. I need to dig into the opinions more and distinguish what is holding and what is dictum in each major case. The Supreme Court spews out a lot of dicta in affirmative action cases, which is one reason why the law on this issue is still unsettled as it is after the previous cases.</p>
<p>As one of the Supreme Court justices is gonna retire, I just hope the replacement is someone with a sense of the gross inequities of the affirmative action system, and vote accordingly.</p>