Giving diversity its due.

Applying to College
81

<p>Fabrizio: "spideygirl...Your response makes me chuckle."</p>

<p>I am glad I could bring a smile to your face. Laughter is healthy - it's good for you, Fabrizio. :)</p>

<p>Fabrizio: "You started off by writing, “Serious, all bull and debate aside, do you really think it would be cool for me to send my kids off to a campus where there were hardly any URM students (because the applicant pool had a bunch of great ones but they were about 50 SAT points or a tenth or two GPA points lower - in addition to on average having only about 20% of the income advantages)?”...I responded by saying that it’s none of my business and deferring to the wishes of your children....You then replied with a “Exactly.”...So, why ask me in the first place?"</p>

<p>HMMM....I just agreed with you. If you say something, you should be happy if someone concurs. I do not think that you should be able to impact, even as a voter, how businesses hire, how colleges extend offers of admission, or the composition of campuses other people's children might like to attend. So I agreed that those things should be "none of your business". Your word choice, not mine.</p>

<p>Also: "[it’s none of your business]" I removed that part, since I don't think you should doctor other people's quotes. :)</p>

82

<p>This morning I was watching Today (with Ann Curry and others). And I thought of you, Fabrizio, and those who share your opinion (perhaps members of the tide you described). Isn't it nice that I am thinking of you?</p>

<p>Anyway, I noticed that as I looked at the four regulars on the show seated together, it appeared that as a group they represented Caucasian, African-American, and Asian races. Was that an accident? I’d bet the farm that it wasn’t (whether anyone at the network would admit to that is a different story). All of those races watch the show. Producers wanted to appeal to an audience. Racial appearance has no bearing (unlike with a movie character) on job performance. I believe someone puppeteered the race distribution. And it makes the show so much more appealing to the majority of us. The show IS successful, and if the numbers didn't support those choices they wouldn't have done it intentionally. </p>

<p>Look around. Everywhere groups are becoming more and more racially mixed (sometimes literally). Often it is because a conscious decision was made in hiring, or even before that on campuses (which effects the pool of applicants for jobs). The fact that this is happening everywhere (and I know that it is) tells us that despite victories in the Diebold voting booths, in practice getting campuses and employee groups to align better with the general population is happening. Intentionally. Without positive or negative discrimination, and with malice toward none. Due solely to market forces (with adcoms and hiring managers doing what they need to do to meet market demand). No one is giving them a preference or extra points. Companies want to sell more product. Colleges want companies to hire their graduates. They need to have a student body which meets the needs of those companies.</p>

<p>The traditional AA debate really is ridiculous anyway. No matter how I look at this issue of intentionally making college campuses more diverse, I don’t get why anyone would be against it. Statistically, the majority of URM's do not have a level playing field. Colleges know that on average these kids have had to overcome more obstacles to achieve. They do look carefully at individuals (I don’t believe that rich URM’s are in particularly high demand), and choose the best prospects in order to compose a class. Rounding out a class racially with kids who all end up doing well is a good thing. If URM’s are capable of doing the work, and graduation statistics posted here on CC show they are, then that proves there was something amiss in the college prep process (it wasn’t a level playing field). Throughout the admissions process, adcoms are making multiple adjustments for the playing field. Why get your knickers all tied in a knot over this one issue? If we know that on average URM’s perform higher than their stats predict, why hobble an adcom from using that information? Caucasian farm boys from lackluster schools in Iowa often perform higher than their stats predict as well. So do many athletes of all races.</p>

<p>How To Get Flamed By Absolutely Everyone: I just have to wonder, when it happens because of race, why does the discussion get so heated? Why not get mad at that football player who stole your little genius’ spot at Harvard? Sometimes I wonder if it is because some Caucasians are really mad that something was taken away from them (power guaranteed by race) when laws changed to protect minorities from discrimination. I also question if those same people use that anger to fuel faux indignation at reverse discrimination, even when reverse discrimination clearly isn’t happening. And maybe indignation isn’t really the issue? Sometimes I see URM’s be way too quick to judge that they are being discriminated against (and too quick to identify with their parents or grandparents, whose suffering is not theirs), creating racial tension in the process where none (or barely any) existed. And then I see the world truly getting so much better. People becoming more and more tolerant (scratch that – bad word – ACCEPTING). And then I think that those who are standing in the way of progress should just CHILL. On both sides of the debate (and I had no one in particular in mind when writing this last paragraph - you can't know someone from what they post on CC).</p>

83

<p>Fabrizio: "However, the belief that minority students should be sought after because they fill a “niche” and provide “diversity” that others can’t is highly insulting, degrading, and condescending to all parties involved."</p>

<p>You know, it is a little known fact that Hitler's army was really extremely diverse. There were men who could play the accordian, some who could chug a stein of beer at a a record pace, those who could eat more than a hundred brats at sitting, etc. </p>

<p>Levity. please. :) :) :)</p>

<p>(I get to make German jokes because of my heritage. But I would make them anyway. Because those kinds of jokes are funny!).</p>

84

<p>Well said Spideygirl, that was the most articulate post I have read on CC.</p>

85

<p>"since I don't think you should doctor other people's quotes."</p>

<p>:/ It wasn't doctoring, it was necessary for the quote to make sense.</p>

<p>"it appeared that as a group they represented Caucasian, African-American, and Asian races. Was that an accident? I’d bet the farm that it wasn’t (whether anyone at the network would admit to that is a different story). All of those races watch the show."</p>

<p>So it couldn't possibly have been because the black guy and the Asian chick were actually more qualified? That's incredibly insulting to both. And apparently Hispanics don't watch the Today show. </p>

<p>"The show IS successful, and if the numbers didn't support those choices they wouldn't have done it intentionally."</p>

<p>Why does that in anyway support that the show is popular because it includes a black guy and an Asian chick?</p>

<p>"Often it is because a conscious decision was made in hiring, or even before that on campuses (which effects the pool of applicants for jobs)."</p>

<p>Proof, please. Are you saying that without a conscious decision, diversity wouldn't occur because white people are more suited for the job in comparison to minorities?</p>

<p>"Intentionally. Without positive or negative discrimination, and with malice toward none. Due solely to market forces (with adcoms and hiring managers doing what they need to do to meet market demand)."</p>

<p>No matter how many times you say it, by favoring one group, all the others automatically are disadvantaged.</p>

<p>"No one is giving them a preference or extra points."</p>

<p>Yes, they are, if it is a "conscious decision."</p>

<p>"Companies want to sell more product. Colleges want companies to hire their graduates. They need to have a student body which meets the needs of those companies."</p>

<p>So racism is allowed if it is more profitable?</p>

<p>"Statistically, the majority of URM's do not have a level playing field. Colleges know that on average these kids have had to overcome more obstacles to achieve."</p>

<p>Statistics and averages don't matter when it comes to individuals. So the majority of a race is poor, does that mean anything to the rich kid? And then with all your talk of averages and statistics, you say:</p>

<p>"They do look carefully at individuals"</p>

<p>So then why should averages matter, at all?</p>

<p>"I don’t believe that rich URM’s are in particularly high demand"</p>

<p>I believe that URMs are in high demand and that colleges could care less whether that URM is rich or poor if it makes the college look more "diverse" from the outside.</p>

<p>"If URM’s are capable of doing the work, and graduation statistics posted here on CC show they are, then that proves there was something amiss in the college prep process (it wasn’t a level playing field)."</p>

<p>Actually, no it doesn't, if anything, it supports the fact that they weren't terribly disadvantaged to begin with, that or that the amount of college prep doesn't matter in the end. Also, those stats you were talking about only mention the grad. rate, and not what the GPAs were.</p>

<p>"Throughout the admissions process, adcoms are making multiple adjustments for the playing field. Why get your knickers all tied in a knot over this one issue?"</p>

<p>Because I don't believe that race, in and of itself says anything about an uneven playing field.</p>

<p>"Caucasian farm boys from lackluster schools in Iowa often perform higher than their stats predict as well."</p>

<p>I wouldn't disagree with this because of the fact that he went to a "lackluster school", white or farm boy, or Iowa, doesn't matter at all.</p>

<p>"Why not get mad at that football player who stole your little genius’ spot at Harvard?" </p>

<p>I actually support athlete's recruitments to some extent because they contribute to the campus more than just making it LOOK more diverse and "proportional".</p>

<p>"Sometimes I wonder if it is because some Caucasians are really mad that something was taken away from them (power guaranteed by race) when laws changed to protect minorities from discrimination."</p>

<p>I'm not white, and I support laws that protect minorities from discrimination, however, I do NOT support something which favors one race over another. </p>

<p>"I also question if those same people use that anger to fuel faux indignation at reverse discrimination, even when reverse discrimination clearly isn’t happening."</p>

<p>"faux indignation"? "clearly isn't happening?" Find some proof before you make those claims.</p>

<p>"You know, it is a little known fact that Hitler's army was really extremely diverse. There were men who could play the accordian, some who could chug a stein of beer at a a record pace, those who could eat more than a hundred brats at sitting, etc."</p>

<p>Godwin's Law :rolleyes:</p>

86

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>You brought a smile to my face because the way you responded was comical. First, you asked for my input on a personal issue – where your kids will attend school. When I noted that it () wasn’t any of my business, you replied, “Exactly” and had an overall tone of “it *is none of your business.” If that was how you were going to respond all along, then why ask me for my opinion in the first place? Seemed like there was no point.</p>

<p>Why is there an asterisk after “it”? It’s there because based on your second-to-last paragraph, you have forgotten what “it” was.</p>

<p>“It” was where your children will go to school. That is none of my business. Yet, you have revised your posting history to suggest that “it” also meant “how businesses hire, [and] how colleges extend offers of admission…” I wasn’t aware that you were talking about those things when you asked me for my opinion on whether or not it’s “fair” that your kids might attend a school that doesn’t conform to your vision of an equal representation society. </p>

<p>Here we have another example of your absolution of segregation. You “do not think that [voters] should be able to impact…how colleges extend offers of admission”? So, to you, a citizen who was eligible to vote in the 1960s shouldn’t have had a right to complain about Jim Crow and segregation in education? Jim Crow and segregation should have just stayed there, regardless of the wishes of the voters? Sorry, I can’t agree with you here.</p>

<p>I wonder what kind of democracy you support and just how “free” the markets would be in this “democracy.”</p>

87

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>
[quote]

No matter how I look at this issue of intentionally making college campuses more diverse, I don’t get why anyone would be against it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who ever said that I was against increasing diversity? That is an honorable goal. The question is - can you achieve diversity through race-blind policies? I believe the answer is a resounding “yes,” but I am well aware that many disagree.</p>

<p>If you really think that race does not result in preference, then I challenge you to support race-blind policies.</p>

<p>What do companies “need?” I think they need competent employees who are able to get the work done by themselves and with teams. No single race has a monopoly on being a competent employee. If I were an employer, I’d hire the people who could do the work the best and get along with their co-workers, regardless of race.</p>

88

<p>
[QUOTE]
Why not get mad at that football player who stole your little genius’ spot at Harvard?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Some of us do, but this thread isn't about that at all.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You know, it is a little known fact that Hitler's army was really extremely diverse. There were men who could play the accordian, some who could chug a stein of beer at a a record pace, those who could eat more than a hundred brats at sitting, etc.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Remind me how many Communists were in Hitler's Army? Any Central Asian history buffs? People with a strong interest in postmodern architecture, or East African artwork? Quantum physicists (well, I'm sure there were some, but...)? Evolutionary biologists? People who actually had different opinions on issues like the inflating currency or concentration camps and cared enough about them to express them?</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but nobody considers diversity to be the ability to suck one's toenails.</p>

89

<p>Charisma: "So it couldn't possibly have been because the black guy and the Asian chick were actually more qualified? That's incredibly insulting to both. And apparently Hispanics don't watch the Today show."</p>

<p>No, it isn't insulting to any of them. The candidate pool the Today show can pick from is filled with superstars. You couldn't realistically hope to "rank" one over the other without a ridiculous amount of subjectivity which would have nothing to do with "better". In that very subjective process, if the producers hoped to add a URM to the cast, they would have subjectively chosen from among an absurdly talented, educated group of candidates. </p>

<p>By the way, one of them was Hispanic, but that isn't a RACE, Charisma.</p>

90

<p>fabrizio: "Here we have another example of your absolution of segregation."</p>

<p>Wow - that was such a bad point the first time you made it that I am surprised you are throwing it out there again. Anyone reading can review my posts and find numerous times where I require an absence of malice toward any race or group as a part of my opinion. Come up with something that has legs. </p>

<p>I almost always revise my posts, as I type fast and change words (within the brief amount of time before the post becomes permanent) to better match my thoughts. Thanks for attempting to analyze the construct of my writing, though, and for giving me so much of your attention. :)</p>

91

<p>Fabrizio: "Who ever said that I was against increasing diversity? That is an honorable goal. The question is - can you achieve diversity through race-blind policies? I believe the answer is a resounding “yes,” but I am well aware that many disagree....If you really think that race does not result in preference, then I challenge you to support race-blind policies."</p>

<p>I am tempted to do something weird like analyze how many times you used a certain letter, or perhaps the time of day during which you posted, but instead I think I will just address the point you tried to make.</p>

<p>Markets ARE race-blind, Fabrizio. It's all about selling product.</p>

<p>Fabrizio: "What do companies “need?” I think they need competent employees who are able to get the work done by themselves and with teams. No single race has a monopoly on being a competent employee. If I were an employer, I’d hire the people who could do the work the best and get along with their co-workers, regardless of race."</p>

<p>If they didn't do these things, they wouldn't be running their businesses well. Creating diverse groups of employees is another thing that they do. The two are not mutually exclusive.</p>

92

<p>spideygirl,</p>

<p>So, it was “such a bad point” that you came up with approximately fifteen quotations, of which none addressed my “bad point.” More interestingly, one of those fifteen quotations was the one that I found fault in. Thus, you were trying to respond to my problem with one of your paragraphs using that same paragraph. </p>

<p>And, what you’re doing here is much of the same. You haven’t addressed my criticism. You’ve just claimed that “anybody” can see what you “really” are.</p>

<p>Anyway…</p>

<p>You wrote that you “do not think that [voters] should be able to impact…how colleges extend offers of admission.” That is, we have no right to complain even if these colleges employ grossly discriminatory policies. So, according to you, the civil rights activists of the 1960s had no right to complain about segregation and Jim Crow and were wrong to do so. Sorry, I can’t agree with you here.</p>

93

<p>proletariat2: "Remind me how many Communists were in Hitler's Army? Any Central Asian history buffs? People with a strong interest in postmodern architecture, or East African artwork? Quantum physicists (well, I'm sure there were some, but...)? Evolutionary biologists? People who actually had different opinions on issues like the inflating currency or concentration camps and cared enough about them to express them? I'm sorry, but nobody considers diversity to be the ability to suck one's toenails."</p>

<p>What are you trying to say?</p>

94

<p>"No, it isn't insulting to any of them. The candidate pool the Today show can pick is filled with superstars. You couldn't realistically hope to "rank" one over the other without a ridiculous amount of subjectivity which would have nothing to do with "better". In that very subjective process, if the producers hoped to add a URM to the cast, they would have subjectively chosen from among an absurdly talented, educated group of candidates."</p>

<p>Yes, it is, because it implies that if not for "diversity" they would not have been picked.</p>

<p>"By the way, one of them was Hispanic, but that isn't a RACE, Charisma."</p>

<p>I didn't say that it was, but at least for college admissions, it is considered in the same way as race. Also, Asian isn't a RACE, spideygirl.</p>

95

<p>fabrizio: :"So, it was “such a bad point” that you came up with approximately fifteen quotations, of which none addressed my “bad point.” More interestingly, one of those fifteen quotations was the one that I found fault in. Thus, you were trying to respond to my problem with one of your paragraphs using that same paragraph. </p>

<p>And, what you’re doing here is much of the same. You haven’t addressed my criticism. You’ve just claimed that “anybody” can see what you “really” are."</p>

<p>Huh???</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
Markets ARE race-blind, Fabrizio. It's all about selling product.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Great, so you recognize that there is no such thing as under-representation in free markets. It’s indeed all about “selling product.” What clears the market is the equilibrium quantity, that is, the “right” amount.</p>

<p>Thus, if a school’s black enrollment is lower than Census statistics, there is no under-representation since all the “product” has been sold.</p>

<p>Thank you for seeing that there is no way that minorities could be under-represented at schools your children choose in the future, provided that the markets are free.</p>

97

<p>charisma: "Yes, it is, because it implies that if not for "diversity" they would not have been picked."</p>

<p>It does not imply that, and if you had any inkling to think so, my post #89 to you should have made that very clear.</p>

98

<p>fabrizio: "Thus, if a school’s black enrollment is lower than Census statistics, there is no under-representation since all the “product” has been sold....Thank you for seeing that there is no way that minorities could be under-represented at schools your children choose in the future, provided that the markets are free."</p>

<p>Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand my point about how to apply a market model to hiring practices and college admissions.</p>

99

<p>"It does not imply that, and if you had any inkling to think so, my post #89 to you should have made that very clear."</p>

<p>Post #89 says that all of the people are equally great (which I disagree with, but whatever), but those two were chosen. So, they were not chosen because they were better, but because of their race, how is that not insulting?</p>

100

<p>Charisma: The notion of "race" has never been a fixed thing. I think that in terms of current usage, Asian is considered a race and Hispanic is an ethnicity.</p>