<p>Ugh its not about scores or skin color caramelkisses. its about the number of opportunities available to an individual. I dont think race is a viable way to determine the number of opportunities available to someone. I dont care about how many black or hispanic or white or asian kids go to a college. I care about diversity, which is a wide breadth of experiences. THATS WHAT DIVERSITY IS (in caps for emphasis lol). Its not race, but about the breadth of experiences that an individual brings to his/her community. AA is a poor way of achieving diversity (at least as in the terms I define it in. You define it in terms of the number of URMs). and i never proposed making absolute standards. I'm against that. but i dont think the standards should be lowered just for someone who has a different skin color. read the first paragraph of the link i posted please.</p>
<p>An upper-class person of Native American heritage that has absolutely no connection to their history per se offers no diversity that an upper-class person of white heritage would offer except a different skin color and their personal experiences (which we have established are not dependent on race).</p>
<p>The first student gets a boost. I'm trying to understand why that's justified.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic/geographic factors are clearly better indicators of opportunity.</p>
<p>i agree strongly with collegehopefull. word up. and im a minority.</p>
<p>"And also, if you come from a relatively poor family then make Harvard aware of that. They are constantly trying to find more applicants OF ALL RACES who come from lower socioeconomic levels. Such an applicant, regardless of race, is extremely desirable to them - possibly as desirable as a URM." </p>
<p>Harvard is making every attempt to reach out to all students from lower socioeconomic levels. During their break after finals last week, my kid came home and went to disadvantaged middle and high schools in various inner cities talking about Harvard, what they were looking for and how to apply.</p>
<p>I want to hear what the ACT/SAT cutoffs are to be qualified does anyone want to throw out a number?</p>
<p>Look online</p>
<p>Aww, hey, thanks squaregirl!</p>
<p>I think we may be the only people on this thread that don't think real diversity comes from different looking people. (And...noitaraperp (?) too)</p>
<p>It seems to me that if you are holding someone's race on the same level of socioeconomic strata........</p>
<p>You're saying something is inherently different about them because of their race.</p>
<p>(Everyone press control F and search for "magically erase"......Then read the statement the guy makes about "blackness".....I would argue that what he thinks is something inherent to black people is actually just an intrinsic cultural element that black people predominately belong to because of financial status.......Or don't you want to give up your "Us" and "Them" biological dichotomy....?)</p>
<p>I thought it was actually terribly racist to say that black people/white people/etc were INHERENTLY different.</p>
<p>Looks like I'm wrong though, because if they weren't, you could just resort to socioeconomic status to ensure diversity of background and thought.</p>
<p>I mean, seriously, what the hell are we saying?
That true diversity comes from having an entire spectrum of melanin distribution?</p>
<p>If that's a criterion of diversity....Jesus pucking christ.</p>
<p>Who the hell is anyone to say "Well, we have too many darn Korean kids.....Looks like we better cut down on them and admit some more Hispanics..."</p>
<p>Who are these self righteous pricks in an admissions office playing the white man with a burden?</p>
<p>RACE DETERMINES NOTHING ABOUT YOU. THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE AS A RESULT OF HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE DETERMINE ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU</p>
<p>From your success in school (and what school you go to), to the experiences you have...</p>
<p>What is the justification for race playing a role in admission then?</p>
<p>Diversity?
In what, skin color?</p>
<p>How important is that?
I mean, literally the argument sounds like "We want to have a rainbow of people here"</p>
<p>That's not IMPORTANT, and MOREOVER, it's not even something that wouldn't occur if you ignored race in admissions!</p>
<p>Do you really believe there would be no black people at Harvard if you didn't admit black people in order to preserve some arbitrary level of diversity?</p>
<p>That's a pretty prejudiced view of black people, if I may say so myself.</p>
<p>This can be extended to other people as well:</p>
<p>If race weren't a factor, do you think only Asians/rich white people would find themselves at Harvard?</p>
<p>Do you really believe that people who don't fall in your racial gestalt are incapable of success?</p>
<p>That's a disgusting mindset to have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"An upper-class person of Native American heritage that has absolutely no connection to their history per se offers no diversity that an upper-class person of white heritage would offer except a different skin color and their personal experiences (which we have established are not dependent on race)."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree, race as a social construct has serious implications to social life at any income level. I mean look at Jack and Jill, for those who are not black Jack and Jill is an organization of wealthy black people who want their kids to mingle with other wealthy black people. The group is fundamentally about community bc as a minority or person of any other ethnic group you are going to see the world through the eyes of an idiosyncratic group.</p>
<p>Take for example when you learn about slavery, to me it impacts me more because I grew up hearing stories about my ancestors who were slaves and the hardships they faced and so in class that is a perspective that is unique to a person BECAUSE of their race. Or when learning about Japenese/Chinese conflict, the Chinese students had a much deeper understanding of the Chinese holocaust and about the abuses that occured than I did. </p>
<p>Race DOES EQUAL DIVERSITY on a LOT of things.</p>
<p>You make good points, Caramelkisses, and I find myself agreeing with you on several of them. However, those who oppose AA are not "operating on the basic assumption that there's a certain number that equals 'qualified'". I think of "qualified" as a readiness for intellectual challenges, initiative, leadership, creativity, persistence, and talent...all of which are supposed to be reflected in a college application. The best ways to diagnose academic competence is through grades (which translates to GPA) and as faulty as it is, the SAT. The other qualities that distinguish a student should be reflected in their ECs, recommendations, and essays. </p>
<p>Since ECs and essays cannot be standardized, the only ways to objectively measure a student is through his intellectual potential, which is easily quantified by numbers. Although numbers are certainly far from accurate all the time for everyone, most of the time they are commensurate to intellectual ability. </p>
<p>Moreover, I bet that only rarely are URM's essays and ECs so great that they offset poor numbers and are thus equally qualified as ORM's and whites, which is how you seem to define "qualified" (factors not quantified by numbers). </p>
<p>Having addressed that, I would hate to go to a homogeneous school, either in terms of class, ideas, experiences, or race. I think a better argument for Affirmative Action is to see that race is intimately linked with diversity of thought and a drastic reduction in available opportunities, irregardless of class, because of history's influence on current social constructs. Race seeps into all aspects of one's life, including how one is treated and which opportunities are available. I would go far as to say that simply being an URM comes with lurking obstacles everyday that must be overcome, such as racial profiling, lowered expectations, etc. that may contribute to internalized racism.</p>
<p>People who oppose AA should not generalize URMs as under qualified simply because they do not meet the normal standards of a stellar college application, including test scores, ECs, and essays, because difficult life experiences are just as important in shaping an extraordinary applicant or person.</p>
<p>Consideration of race in admissions is not used solely (or even mostly) to provide opportunity to people who've otherwise not had it. The amount of opportunity people have had is well accounted for in other parts of the application: your ZIP code, the high school you went to, the information sent to colleges about the courses available at your high school, information about your parents' educational backgrounds, potentially in your personal statement, and (at non need-blind schools) your FAFSA. No admissions officer anywhere - unless they're incredibly stupid - is saying "Ohh, black kid - must've never had any opportunities! Let's admit him!" without looking at the rest of the application. Ditto the reverse: "Oh no, look at this white kid here. He's clearly rich and had lots of opportunity, so he doesn't need us. Deny!" That would obviously be very clumsy.</p>
<p>The whole point I'm making is that taking race into account is part of a HOLISTIC view of applications. Reread my posts, I have never once said that the definition of diversity hinges entirely on the number of URMs. In fact, I have acknowledged that a number of different factors contribute to diversity - BUT RACE IS ONE OF THEM. </p>
<p>As I said, if you're comfortable with throwing racial diversity at top colleges almost entirely out the window, that's your personal inclination. As has been stated, there are plenty of other types of diversity out there. Maintaining affirmative action ensures that ALL types of diversity - non-racial and racial - are taken into account. Advocating getting rid of it right now is equivalent to saying that, at least in the short run, racial diversity at these schools is unimportant when compared with the perceived "unfair" treatment of "qualified" whites and Asians. </p>
<p>Relatedly, I read the article you posted, Millerl1te. Among some of its more dubious claims, it acknowledges what I'm saying: "Were college administrators to enroll students primarily on the basis of academic performance without regard to race or ethnicity, projections show that Asian students would increase substantially at the most competitive colleges, while Black enrollment would sink to the 1-3% level, and Hispanic enrollment would similarly plunge, though somewhat less steeply. Instituting class-based preferences rather than race-based preferences, as many have suggested, would not significantly raise the proportion of currently underrepresented minorities for the simple reason that there are a lot of poor Asians and poor Whites with much superior academic credentials to poor Blacks and poor Hispanics."</p>
<p>As I've been trying to make clear, the above is an undesirable outcome (at least to me). So reading it didn't change my mind about anything.</p>
<p>(EDIT: I just read Dbate's last post, which articulated perfectly what I'm trying to say in this paragraph.) And to Baelor, I'm not convinced that there are enough URMs with absolutely no connection to their heritage <em>whatsoever</em> for your hypothetical to merit much concern. The fact is, for the vast majority of people of color (this includes Asians), your heritage DOES in fact have some effect on your personal experience, and thus contribute to racial diversity. So while I willingly acknowledge that race can be a clumsy indicator of opportunity, it's a pretty reliable indicator of the presence of some life experience informed by race.</p>
<p>EDIT 2: Caddy BJ, I see the merit of what you're saying in your first few paragraphs, and agree wholeheartedly with your last 2. :)</p>
<p>^ GAH AGAIN!</p>
<p>WHY WOULD THE SCHOOL BE HOMOGENEOUS? </p>
<p>AGAIN!</p>
<p>The assumption is that there is some unavoidable stumbling block that keeps out everything.....</p>
<p>Gah, NO!</p>
<p>Your success in life is dependent on your efforts, and how much was invested in those efforts!</p>
<p>That's why it's more impressive for a 2400 to come from a public school than a g20 school...</p>
<p>If you start drawing those lines of hardwork/money on race, instead of hardwork/money, then you make immediate statements about race.</p>
<p>What's next? "Oh, you're a minority....so, we'll just give you a gentleman's B if you show up to class everyday..."</p>
<p>"Oh...you're Asian...well, I heard you guys were just naturally good at math....Why don't you apply as a history major? We just want to mix things up a bit, that's all"</p>
<p>Cultural diversity, that is, diversity of experiences, is something that can't be measured by how rich/poor, colored/pale someone is.</p>
<p>Cultural diversity would definitely be on campuses if race still weren't considered.</p>
<p>In fact, I think you would get the same distribution you do know, if your only adjustments were for opportunity and not race.</p>
<p>Instituting class-based preferences rather than race-based preferences, as many have suggested, would not significantly raise the proportion of currently underrepresented minorities for the simple reason that there are a lot of poor Asians and poor Whites with much superior academic credentials to poor Blacks and poor Hispanics."</p>
<p>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kill me. If those people had the same opportunities, and the asian/white made better use of the same opportunities available to them than the URM, I would choose that person every time. Although that hypothetical doesnt exist, it proves my point. you're giving those who are less qualified a leg up JUST BECAUSE of their skin color and their heritage, which might not even be a part or a factor of their lives.</p>
<p>AND PLEASE, dont tell me that people dont reject or forget their heritage. Im Mexican and I dont care too much about Santa Ana or anything like that. It sucks that people who do not work as hard in a given environment with the same opportunities get in to amazing colleges over people who worked 3x harder in that same evironment with the same opportunities. They had the same experience, in terms of high school and social life. Sure they had different friends, but doesnt everybody? My god... Race should not be a factor. There is no use for it anymore. Opportunities should be. </p>
<p>That being said, i dont want to go to a homogenous school, but I think that a school who doesnt practice AA is just as awesome as those that do. Im not racist, and shame on you if you think I am or collegehopeful is either. We want equality and fairness, but in a different form other than AA. Different races does not equal diversity. And it shouldnt be a factor because the side effects of the AA program are to strong</p>
<p>Millerl1te, I don't think that either you or collegehopefull is racist. I can see where you're coming from, and how frustrating it must be to see URMs getting into top schools whereas hardworking people without hooks do not. (I feel the same way about legacies.)</p>
<p>However, race is does not exist in isolation with personality...it's not something that is limited to biology. You must see race as a part of a larger construct, whereby URMs have been oppressed, whether they realize it or not, by their history. One way that the US is trying to repay them is through college admissions, and if that means cultivating a mind that is perhaps rough on the edges, but capable of rising above his/her peers, then why not defer those who will probably succeed anyways without the Ivy degree?</p>
<p>"And to Baelor, I'm not convinced that there are enough URMs with absolutely no connection to their heritage <em>whatsoever</em> for your hypothetical to merit much concern. The fact is, for the vast majority of people of color (this includes Asians), your heritage DOES in fact have some effect on your personal experience, and thus contribute to racial diversity. So while I willingly acknowledge that race can be a clumsy indicator of opportunity, it's a pretty reliable indicator of the presence of some life experience informed by race."</p>
<p>I can assure you that there are, and I encounter them everyday. Anecdotal evidence? Yes. But considering the fact that it is drawn from the exact demographic about which I am speaking, i.e. upper-class well-educated URMs, it is valid support.</p>
<p>There is some evidence that eliminating AA would have impact on the diversity of colleges. Not that I like AA-heck, there are many deserviing people who the system has failed, but in France, the population is roughly 1/15 of African descent. Colleges there are not allowed to use race as a factor in admissions. The amount of people in college of African descent is significantly less than that 1/15, with an even larger drop to the top colleges. </p>
<p>I'm not saying this would necessary happen in the US, since obviously there are many differences between us and France. I'm just saying that the idea of creating a completely colorblind society can end up backfiring. </p>
<p>As to the idea that the average accepted URM had a lower score than rejected white applicants, it's well-known knowledge that scores are not everything in admissions. Plenty of valedictorians with 2400 SATs get rejected over people with much lower scores. Scores do not make you qualified. Scores cannot adequately classify a person- for all you know, that person with a 2000 on the SAT could be an amazing artist.</p>
<p>Lastly, it's well-known that the Ivy's don't use AA as a huge part of their policies. They already engineer their student body significantly. Race is probably the same as legacy, socio-economic diversity, athletes, whatnot. It's no secret they don't just want people who are in their rooms all day studying, they don't want a billion New Englanders, they don't want a ton of musicians, blah blah blah * insert group here*. One of their goals is to have a diverse class-not just a smart, boring class, but a smart, diverse class.</p>
<p>To Baelor: How do you know that they are not connected to thier heritage? I mostly white and Asian friends and if you ask any of them they would say that I am the one of the whitess black people they know. In fact one even said that I was not culturally black, but that is because THEY do not understand that being connected to your heritage is manifest on a different levels for different people.</p>
<p>I personally feel that blacks should work hard in school because we specifically as a group were denied those opportunities and our ancestors worked hard for us to get an education and that is why I work hard in school and excel. But to the outsider it just seems like I am a smart black kid who acts white. </p>
<p>People don't have to wear african clothes to be conecnted to their heritage.</p>
<p>I agree with Dbate's point in the last post. A minority from a good socioeconomic backround (like yourself) can still have a diversity factor unseen by others. However, I do not think that diversity factor should be the deciding factor between that minority and a more qualified white applicant. I also agree with collegehopeful's idea that a compelling amount of diversity can exist within whites/asians. For example, picture a white drug user at your school. If he were to give up his habits and turn his life around to combat drugs in his community, wouldn't you think his experiences make him more diverse then most URMs? Thats just an extreme example, but do you get my point?</p>
<p>Im a black man, Im broke, my mom is a single parent, and my dad is in jail, i live in the city. Ive worked in congress, ive put myself into private school, and i now am getting my IB diploma from an international school in italy, i speak english italian and spanish. No one else from where i come from could even dream of being able to say this. I shouldnt either. The ONLY reason that i have been able to have these experiances is because of people outside of my immediate family that took an intrest in my future and showed me where to go and what to do. but even then they would never do it for me, it has been a result of tremendous work. Combine the stress of IB exams with the stress of worrying about if your parents are going to be homeless, or your sister getting pregnant, or your father going to jail. Then to top all of that off, with trying to reconcile your goals, with your blackness. I dont think that racism as it was for my grandparents exists as much today, but the way people treat me is definately different because im black. And in many professional situations, i have to work extra hard despite be ability, to succeed. Just because being black may get me into harvard over somone else, what do i have to go through and deal with to thrive there. Will i have to only speak with other black students, will i have to pretend to "act white" around my white friends or can i be myself and run the risk of being "too aggresive" for everyone else in which case i will end up, smart, capable,but alone. Which will not lead to success. At the end of the day...its not about what you know..but who you know. If you keep my story the same but change it only in that i am white, maybe i would fit in more easily. Maybe i would not, i dont know. I know many of you woudl say fitting in is a problem for everyone in some way...i agree. But being black, a black man at that, how much do i have to change myself, how much do have to comprimise what i consider my integrity, for a succesfull time at harvard and after? thoughts?</p>
<p>Your background determines a lot more about whether or not you'll be successful then collegehopefull thinks it does. While race in the physical plays no inherent role in who a person is, race as a social construct plays a HUGE role. Second to the constructs of gender and class, race has likely the largest impact on a persons experience in society.</p>
<p>and by the way, if you stick a few sentences together without the giant break, they form very convenient and pleasant-looking paragraph. It also makes it look less like you're</p>
<p>complaining</p>
<p>and ranting</p>
<p>and shotgunning off</p>
<p>random, disjointed points</p>
<p>thinking that even though 90% of them are superficial </p>
<p>if you say enough of them</p>
<p>one of them with stick!</p>