How much does being a URM help, really?

Applying to College
101

<p>sybbie,</p>

<p>Are you aware of any paper that actually answers the Espenshade and Chung study?</p>

<p>Kidder's article is useful by itself, but it is insufficient as a response to E&C. He used law school data to argue that a paper dealing with undergraduate admissions was flawed. That really doesn't make sense, and I'm ashamed that it took me so long to realize that.</p>

<p>What Kidder did is like this:
~~~</p>

<p>E&C: Pete Sampras is the best male tennis player ever. He was the year-ending #1 for six straight years. He won fourteen major titles. Best ever on the ATP.</p>

<p>Kidder: My data show a different picture. Steffi Graf is the best female tennis player ever. She won twenty-two major titles. She even won every major at least four times. So, you're wrong, E&C. You used flawed reasoning. Your thoughts have been discredited.</p>

<p>~~~</p>

<p>As we can see, that makes no sense.</p>

<p>You may dislike the E&C results because they're politically incorrect in academe, but before you dismiss it as flawed and discredited, I'd like to know of a paper that adequately addresses any and all shortcomings with the same data that E&C used.</p>

102

<p>Quote: Some colleges do actively recruit asian urms as they are underrepresented at a large number of schools. The problem is that many people only have their sights set on a chosen few.</p>

<p>Brandeis, I believe is another.</p>

103

<p>
[quote]
Oakland is predominantly Black and Hispanic. But, it is not exclusively Black and Hispanic. That's important. UCLA's decision to target all students in Oakland is more inclusive than a policy that targeted some students but not others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you want AA to be banned because you want admissions to be equal, then wouldn't UCLA's decision seem unfair to you? Why aren't they offering similar programs across California as a whole instead of just at inner city schools in cities like Oakland? Why aren't these programs being offered at schools in neighborhoods where the students are predominately white and Asian? And actually, UCLA DOES target URMs by offering them assistance/advice and scholarships. KittyLow chose to use data that beat around the bush, but UCLA posted data themselves which does not.</p>

<p>From the article fabrizio himself posted and was later reused by KittyLow:

[quote]
The Vice Provost Initiative for Pre-College Scholars, known as VIPS, is a partnership between UCLA and the Los Angeles and Pasadena school districts to help prepare historically underrepresented students in grades 9–12 to become competitively eligible for admission to UCLA and to encourage pursuit of graduate and professional education. VIPS is focused on underserved students, including students from low-income and first-generation immigrant families, which includes underrepresented minorities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UCLA Center for Community College Partnerships develops and strengthens academic partnerships between UCLA and California community colleges, particularly those with large underrepresented student populations. The center works to help the community colleges develop a "transfer culture." The center works closely with community college administrators, faculty and staff to strengthen and diversify curriculum, create strong academic support programs, improve students' academic competitiveness for admission to the university and increase the diversity of UCLA's transfer-admit pool.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science has the Center for Excellence in Engineering and Diversity, known as CEED, which is committed to the development, recruitment and retention of underrepresented and disadvantaged students in the disciplines of engineering and computer science.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Since 1997, CEED's K–12 programs have served nearly 70 teachers, more than 4,000 students and more than 600 parents from urban schools in both the Los Angeles and Inglewood school districts. K–12 efforts are designed to increase college-going rates for underrepresented youth and to increase the number of urban youths interested in and prepared for majors in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The UCLA African Student Union hosts an annual education conference to promote and encourage student empowerment among youth of African descent in an effort to increase the number of African Americans at institutions of higher education, including UCLA. Elected officials have sent letters to African American admits urging them to enroll at UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA has a program working with disadvantaged and traditionally underrepresented pre-medical students and pre-dental students who show promise for medical and dental training and careers, and who indicate an interest in providing service in California Health Manpower Policy Commission-designated shortage areas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, if you want to read the entire article, here is the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7977&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

104

<h2>sybbie: Now, take this statement, remove Cal Tech and add HYP, the rest of the ivies, Stanford, Duke, the Elite LACs and most of the other private colleges in the country. The only problem is that these discussions end up being pages long is when disussing AA at the ivies and other vry selective schools. What I don't understand is people apply to these schools fully knowing what the schools policy on attracting a diverse class. If anyone feel that what the colleges are doing or their philosphy behind doing it is so egregious, why would you want to attend? The number of applications are not going down, despite people knowing the college's philosophy.</h2>

<p>Does this make any sense? The reason why people choose a college is the the education, the campus, and the ability of the name of the school to open doors when they leave. Maybe the person wants to go to a top 5 liberal arts university. That would automatically rule out CalTech.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
The reason why people choose a college is the the education,** the campus, **and the ability of the name of the school to open doors when they leave.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But they go into this knowing that the campus is diverse.</p>

<p>I think you are missing the point (or at minimum, you are trying to take it out of context). They all are private schools that are free to choose a class that aligns with their institutional mission.</p>

106

<p>Quote: Some colleges do actively recruit asian urms as they are underrepresented at a large number of schools. The problem is that many people only have their sights set on a chosen few.</p>

<h2>Brandeis, I believe is another.</h2>

<p>Are they recruited more or are standards lowered for them? There is a difference. I doubt any top 50 school is willing to lower their standards for an Asian. I mean, after the top 50 schools and the rest of the state universities, where else would someone need help getting in. </p>

<p>BTW, the people with 2400s and perfect GPAs probably don't need help getting into Brandeis....</p>

107

<p>Kenny,</p>

<p>UCLA's decision is fair to me. They're reaching out to students who are disadvantaged. I have no problem with that. I don't speak for them, but if I were an administrator, I would see no need to reach out to high-performing areas.</p>

<p>From what I read in the article, UCLA themselves do not offer the specific scholarships. They are sponsored by the California Community Foundation. That is also fine with me.</p>

<p>My beef with giving preference to URMs simply because they're URMs is that you end up preferentially treating upper middle-class families. (I believe an admissions officer from the Ivy Leagues who posts here verified that.) These are the families that can afford private schools, private tutoring, and private counseling, yet you advocate the grant a license of preference on them anyway.</p>

<p>And, Kenny, I do not want affirmative action to be banned. I want its current manifestation - racial preferences - to be banned. I wholly support original affirmative action, namely, the idea that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of his race, ethnic group, national origin, creed, religion, or gender.</p>

<p>Did you like my response to your other questions regarding qualified "URMs" and under-qualified "ORMs?" Or, do you still deny that being a "URM" is beneficial?</p>

108

<p>Open request:</p>

<p>Please list a paper that disproves the E&C study.</p>

<p>Kidder does not count because he used law school data to address an issue at the undergraduate level.</p>

<p>If Supreme Court cases weren't enough to provide a definitive answer to the topic question, then I'd like to know of a good response to E&C.</p>

109

<p>sybbie, by campus I meant the way the school looks:the architecture, the dorms, etc.</p>

<p>BTW, I don't really care about AA. Like you said, everyone is aware of the policy going in. But I don't believe you should discriminate against Asians...I don't believe whites should have preference over Asians.<br>
I also find it hard to believe that no one condemns MIT's admissions director for stating that one of the complainants about AA was probably "one of thousands of Koreans with exactly the same profile of grades, activities, and temperament--yet another textureless math grind." There is probably no other minority that an admissions director could get away with slandering with a stereotype.</p>

<p>Harvard has more than 10 billion dollars more in endowment than the other ivies or peer institutions. If they really cared about minorities, why don't they take a billion dollars and try to solve the K-12 problem in this country? Or solve the K-12 in Boston...That's the time to help the underpriveleged.</p>

110

<p>is URM only 100%? what if they are 50% or 25%?</p>

111

<p>There is some cut-off like 1/8 of 1/16; I forget which it is.</p>

112

<p>Quote:I doubt any top 50 school is willing to lower their standards for an Asian. I mean, after the top 50 schools and the rest of the state universities, where else would someone need help getting in. </p>

<p>Hey, believe it or not most Asians aren't getting 800 on the math portions of Sat's and most aren't slamdunks to get in their first choice schools. Everyone gets a break, some more than others, some more deserving than others. I'm sure that for those Asians that don't hit the stratisphere with their academic profile find places that give them the benefit of the doubt too.</p>

113

<p>urm is a huge advantage at many schools. i know a black girl at my school who got into Amherst, Williams, and Swathmore with an 1150 SAT (no special hooks). another kid (black male) got into MIT and Stanford with a 1440 SAT (no special hooks). another kid (black male) got into Penn undergrad business with a 1360 SAT and ~3.7uw gpa (was a state debate finalist though). </p>

<p>This is not a rant against urms. It's just that I am disgusted that the system ignores Asians as minorities. It's not my fault that my parents worked their buts off (in spite of glass ceilngs) to achieve success. Many schools hold Asians to higher standards (Math and science) because they only compete for a small portion of the seats set aside for Asians. whereas urms compete for their slice of the pool, which is far less competitive so consequently there are some unqualified acceptances.</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
Did you like my response to your other questions regarding qualified "URMs" and under-qualified "ORMs?" Or, do you still deny that being a "URM" is beneficial?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never denied that being a URM is beneficial. I was only trying to say that being a URM isn't a HUGE bump or else highly qualified URMs wouldn't get turned down. I was referring to this post you made ealier:

[quote]
Without it, numbers changed like crazy. That's why I find it laughable when some people still claim that it "doesn't do a whole lot."</p>

<p>At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it does, in fact, do a whole lot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You say they are helping out disadvantaged students. And the article specifically states over and over again programs that are targeting disadvantaged students that also happen to be URMs. You say there is no need to reach out to high performing areas. But the areas not being reached out to are the ones heavily populated by Asians and Whites and by not reaching out to these high perfoming areas, low performing students (who may be White or Asian) in these schools are not getting the assistance areas heavily populated by URMs are recieving. To me, this seems like preferential treatment in favor of URMs.</p>

<p>Affirmative Action has always meant to take positive steps to increase the representation of women and minorities in employment, education, and business from which these groups have been historically excluded. Some people see preferential treatment as a positive step, a way to close the gap started by slavery and discrimination against URMs. I don't see anything wrong with preferential treatment. I grew up in Hong Kong, learning about Chinese and Asian history, European history, and very little American history. Even though I was born in the U.S., because I received my education in a different country I didn't really know much about slavery or discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics. In fact, I didn't meet my first Black or Hispanic until I was 15. When I was finally enlightened about this country's history with URMs, I was disgusted. Displacing Native Americans, this country's original inhabitors? Forcing Africans over to become slaves, to make profits for a white man who does none of the field work yet recieves all of the money? Segregating schools and allowing for White schools to have better teachers and more funding? Insults and deragatory remarks towards Hispanic immigrants (such as the stereotypes that Mexicans are more than likely illegal immigrants)? That doesn't seem fair to me, it doesn't seem right. This country helped to built a stigma for these URMs that led to many URMs believing the only way to succeed is to become a basketball star or that a college degree isn't an attainable goal for them. Centuries of molding have led to cultures which don't emphasize education because going to school and earning a degree in order to become a professional seems more like a dream (something which will probably not happen) than a goal (something you can make happen). It is my belief that if colleges wanted to give my seat at a school to a URM who was slightly less qualified, I would have no problem giving it up. Because I know I will be successful, but the URM may have doubts about their success.</p>

<p>You can't take back centuries worth of discrimination in 40 years. It's too soon to break off AA. Maybe 20,30, 40 years down the road, after URMs have had more time to catch up, it should be done with.</p>

115

<p>collegealum314,</p>

<p>Thank you for your fair post (#111).</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether it was a MIT admissions director who is responsible for the phrase "textureless math grind." No matter who said it, it is rude and cannot be justified.</p>

<p>Though all too many "diversity" defenders tend to ignore this issue, it is becoming acknowledged as a problem, as demonstrated by last fall's article in Inside Higher Ed, "Too Asian?" I applaud the educators quoted in that article who recognized that there is a bias against Asians in admissions and that this bias should not be written off because of supposed "over-representation."</p>

116

<p>kennyd, what about stereotyping asians as "textureless math grinds", putting Asian Americans in concentration camps in world war II, or seizing their property in the early 1900's when it was decided they weren't white and another time during World War II when they were considered a threat to national security?</p>

<p>no one will argue that Asians had it worse than Native Americans or African-Americans, but I certainly think the discrimination against Asians is on par with hispanics.</p>

117

<p>Fabrizio, it was the MIT admissions director (marilee jones) who made the math grind comment.</p>

118

<p>Kenny,</p>

<p>While you never explicitly stated, "I deny being a URM is beneficial," your post #65 implies it. I quote as follows:</p>

<p>
[quote]

An idea cannot be considered a fact if there are exceptions. How can it be so laughable when there are URMs with high SAT scores and high GPAs who get turned down at schools of Harvard or MIT's caliber? If AA does "do a whole lot" as you say, why aren't these highly qualified URMs getting in? Some posts I have read on CC make it seem as if any URM that shows they have some ability, will automatically get into virtually any school they apply to. These posts seem to be ignoring the fact that some highly qualified URMs do get turned down. What happened in those situations?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my opinion, UCLA does not need to target high performing areas as strongly as they target low performing ones. In the former case, there's a culture of education and achievement. People know that UCLA is a great school, and they want to apply. In the latter case, it may be quite different.</p>

<p>If I were as tough as Mr. Ward Connerly is, then I would agree with you that, yeah, what UCLA is doing is de facto preferential treatment for "URMs." But, I'm not as tough as he is, and targeting students in predominantly "URM" areas is fine with me. They're being encouraged to strengthen themselves with the disclosure that their race will play no role in their evaluation. Fine with me.</p>

<p>Yes, our nation has grossly mistreated certain groups in the past. And for what? Things as shallow as skin color. Why do we continue making judgments based on this factor when its use in the past was responsible for systematic discrimination?</p>

<p>You say that because it's not possible to take centuries of discrimination away in less than half a century, it's too early to abolish racial preferences.</p>

<p>Well, back during the Civil Rights Movement, people were trying to take away the legacy of centuries of discrimination on an immediate basis. Dr. King criticized the people who claimed that the Negro should wait for the "right" time, that it will all come eventually, and so forth. For some people, it was "too early" for Blacks to be given rightful equal treatment. Was it? No, it was long overdue.</p>

<p>Sending a message that a group can only make it through special treatment is disastrous for the well-being of that group. It perpetuates the myth of inferiority.</p>

119

<p>collegealum314,</p>

<p>Wow. I did not know that. Thank you.</p>

<p>I should not have defended Ms. Jones to the extent that I did when the debacle about her degrees destroyed her career.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
no one will argue that Asians had it worse than Native Americans or African-Americans, but I certainly think the discrimination against Asians is on par with hispanics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would have to disagree with this statement. Discrimination against each race is different. This is especially true in different parts of the country. For example, when I flew out to California, I noticed Asians were discriminated against FAR MORE than in my hometown or any other place I had been to in the Northeast. When I flew down south, Hispanics were FAR MORE discriminated against than any other place I had ever been to. One restaurant even had a sign posted saying they would not serve Puerto Ricans. And the manager saw me, noticed the color of my skin could place me under Hispanic, walked over and asked me if I was Puerto Rican, giving me this look that read "if you say yes, I'll kick you out". Historically, Native Americans and African-Americans have had it worse because they have been discriminated against for a much longer period of time. But in terms of Asians vs. Hispanics...it depends where you are. Some places discriminate against Hispanics, some places do not; same goes for Asians. I think it can be difficult to differentiate who is Hispanic and who isn't just by looking at them which prevents some discrimination from occurring.</p>