<p>luisarose - What many who advocate “get rid of race in admissions” are reluctant to acknowledge is the implicit belief that “race gives URMs an unwarranted advantage in admissions, so if we get rid of race there will be additional slots for ORMs.” But if UT is forced to change its admissions methodology (to make it race-ignorant) the likely outcome will be an INCREASE the number of URMs. The current proportion of URMs at UT is half the proportion of minority population in Texas. The irony here is that in the quest to REDUCE the proportion of URMs at UT, it’s likely that “victory” will actually increase the number of URMs. Just say’n.</p>
<p>NewHope33, I don’t really understand your logic. Are you suggesting that URMs are being rejected at UT because of race considerations in admissions? 
</p>
<p>I also don’t think the proportion thing is relevant. Upper SES students are far more likely to go to college, and that often correlates with white students. Thus lower SES students overall are less represented on college campuses. Does not mean that URMs are being held out in order to maintain a certain race ratio.</p>
<p>luisarose but you can’t say that people of color usually/are likely to have a tough upbringing. You have to connect SES and ethnicity every time you mention it. Neglecting to do that, and realizing that race and SES do not have a causal relationship, is incorrect. I wasn’t refuting your overall point, just saying be careful <em>each</em> time you try to tie race and tough upbringing.</p>
<p>Can someone explain the exact definition of ORM? If you’re over represented, you’re not a minority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t. I said they often do, meaning relative to white people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like based on my previous posts, you could probably fill in the gaps. In one post, I used the word “often” when I should have said “sometimes” or “in higher proportions than white people.” I feel like it was still clear what I meant in the context of my postings here…I have frequently mentioned the importance of socioeconomic context and status.</p>
<p>I’m not speaking just within this context. And, regards to this thread, there are hundreds of posts. Anyone could have honestly missed that one point. </p>
<p>Often is the same thing. It only takes not even a minute to add in the extra info. When you say “minorities often have a tougher upbringing” it implies that they have a tougher upbringing because of their race, which isn’t 100% accurate (and most people will read it that way. I knew what you meant, though, and I’m sure we all did actually). Your statements have to hold true even when isolated.</p>
<p>^^ luisarose - Fisher is supposedly about race. If UT had just one black student and Fisher decided that one black took “her spot” what would EVERYONE expect the SCOTUS decision to be?</p>
<p>so … Is it possible that SCOTUS took Fisher because the Justices feel that URMs are still way too under-represented at UT? Is it possible the Court is struggling with the question “is an admissions rate half of population sufficient to create ‘critical mass’?”</p>
<p>Put another way, is there anyone among us so jaded that they believe SCOTUS Justices are talking about how to reduce the number of URMs in universities? If the goal isn’t to reduce an already under-represented groups, the only way their proportion can go is … up.</p>
<p>I guess we’ll never know what critical mass is.</p>
<p>CPU, you’re not suppose to know what critical mass is…if you did it would be a quota.</p>
<p>Critical Mass is whatever the University feels it needs to be that year. The university (all of them that try to reach a “critical mass”, not just UT) feels it needs to keep open it’s options, when putting together a class. They have some valid reasons to stay flexible in admissions.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean in the quantitative sense. Many posts back there was talk about what it was because it was a term SCOTUS first began using, but never explicitly defined. Qualitatively, I’m asking what a critical mass is and what’s that supposed to do for the institution. Why does it have a term… “critical mass” (‘critical’ makes it seem intense).</p>
<p>@CPU, </p>
<p>Of course a segment can be over-represented and still be a minority. ORM generally refers to Asians. They are over-represented at UT by almost a factor of 4X as they comprise 15.2% at the school but are only 4% of the Texas population. 15% and 4% are less than 50%, so that that makes them a minority.</p>
<p>Numerically, non-hispanic whites are also a minority at UT and in the Texas population. They comprise 49.8% at UT and 44.8% for Texas. But white over-representation at UT is modest, not extreme as it is for Asians.</p>
<p>Like I said before, if u insist the UT demographic pie must look like the Texas pie, u will have to kick out the Asians, because that’s the main area of over-representation. It’s essentially a URM vs ORM unbalance, not a URM vs White unbalance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A minority is a group that is not the majority. So let’s use blacks as an example. About 13% of the US population checks the Black/African-American box on the census. So if a school is 20% black, it has over-represented blacks in comparison to the US.</p>
<p>Now let’s try a real life example. Asians are a minority. In California, 13.6% of the population is Asian. UCLA is 38% Asian. Even in LA, Asians are less than 14% of the population. This is a prime example of an over-represented minority.</p>
<p>Also, those of y’all saying it’ll be a 5-4 case…It can’t be a 5-4 case…Elena Kagan recused herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am opposed to AA, but the arbitrariness of racial classifications could be reduced by asking applicants to specify the races of each of their parents (or even of their grandparents) and acknowledging that many people are multiracial. Statistics about the enrolled class and graduation rates could be reported in detail, showing the numbers for students with two white parents, two black parents, one white and one black parent, etc.</p>
<p>Critical mass was first achieved at the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>“The point is that racial categorization is ARBITRARY as you all have provided plenty of anecdotes and evidence of this.”</p>
<p>Sure it’s arbitrary…but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have power in today’s America. These arbitrary classifications were defined by law for 300 years in America. They were extremely specific and varied by state and era; some declared that you were black if you had one eighth African blood, others one sixteenth. All kinds of rights and privileges were recognized and denied on the basis of these laws. It sunk into our culture and into everyone’s minds. Parents taught it to their kids. We’re still living with this. We haven’t erased it.</p>
<p>It’s arbitrary that you stop being a minor at 18, too, but you ignore that law at your peril.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not arbitrary. The definition of the age of majority is applied evenly to everyone when they turn 18 years old. Who is defined as a URM is not. You can be a Caucasian of German descent with a Brazilian address and be defined as Hispanic/Latino. But if you have a German address, you are not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t the census and other places where the question is asked now accept any number of answers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In theory, it can be evaluated as part of a holistic review, specifically as to whether the individual applicant had to overcome racial discrimination and such (and how much). In practice, colleges seem to be lazy in this respect and just rely on check boxes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The legal rights and duties of being an adult do not all come at age 18, and may vary by jurisdiction. A well known case on this forum is that students are not considered independent of parents for college financial aid purposes until age 24, unless they marry or enter military service. One that varies considerably by jurisdiction in the US is the age of consent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such persons would likely be international students, so the race check box at US colleges would likely be irrelevant for them. Also, many definitions of “Hispanic” or “Latino” specifically refer to Spanish linguistic heritage, which would include Spain and most of Latin America but exclude Brazil (where Portuguese is spoken).</p>
<p><a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI725211.htm[/url]”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI725211.htm</a></p>
<p>(emphasis added)
</p>
<p>@ucb, the point is that for whatever the defined age is, it is consistently observed. If the defined age is 21, then on midnight of your 21st birthday you turn into a pumpkin. It’s not 20 years and 6 months for some people, and 21 years and 4 days for others.</p>