<p>“There are also subforums specifically for URMs, is that not proof that certain people are admitted because of their ethnic/cultural background and in some cases, these people are admitted over more qualified candidates?”</p>
<p>What’s “more qualified?” Schools like Harvard consider more “qualifications” than stats. One qualification that is considered is how much a student will contribute to creating the student body the administration desires.</p>
<p>@Northstarmom:</p>
<p>According to you, it is safe to assume that anyone with a NYC accent does not sound white, no? I love how you danced around that issue but it is not highly relevant to the thread.</p>
<p>I am positive many academic and non-academic factors are at play in the admissions process. I’m sure the academic factors play a bigger role than the non-academic factors but I would like to know what the ratio between the two is; 51:49? 60:40? 70:30? Etc?</p>
<p>You have admitted “race” (whatever that is) plays a role in the admissions process. Even if is less than 1/10 of 1%, it is simply too much; “race”, cultural background, and other similar non-academic factors should never play a role in the admissions process. Now, if private institutions wish to engage in “diversification”, more power to them.</p>
<p>I may be incorrect, but I think the lady’s comment bothered you because perhaps you retain some insecurities about your own admission to Harvard. If you are aware certain candidates are admitted thanks to non-academic factors and lacking enough evidence on the specific case you presented in the OP, why did you reach the conclusion that this lady is “wrong”? It is possible and perhaps even probable that she is correct, no?</p>
<p>Why did you not post about your Detroit friend earlier? I think her comments are more appalling than the comments expressed by the OP’s lady; why, your friend suggested you succeeded in Detroit because, and only because of the color of your skin! But apparently, she was right…?</p>
<p>Note: this thread reminds me of a news bit some weeks back about NYC Mayor Bloomberg not hiring enough non-white people to serve under him; apparently, having a rainbow of civil servants would be more beneficial to NYC than having qualified candidates, regardless of their skin color.</p>
<p>I’m befuddled. I must not understand the numbers involved, or the nature of holistic admissions, or something. Don’t highly selective schools make the admission each year that they must turn down many more qualified students than they can admit? So why would an applicant who was rejected feel “personally” rejected, or that “their” spot was taken by a less-qualified student? How can applicants feel confident that they deserve acceptance letters? (Perhaps I understand the numbers involved better than they do?)</p>
<p>I know two students personally who may have been admitted to Princeton, in some small part, because of URM status. I have no idea what the ratio between academic vs. non-academic factors was in each case. I do know that both students had SATs within the mid-50 percent range for Princeton, and strong A averages with multiple APs in high school (in other words, academically qualified for admission). One was first chair in his section in the All-State orchestra, with multiple recognitions and achievements in music beyond that level. The other finished second in a highly esteemed national competition, and received statewide recognition in two fields separate from the national contest. Talent is an entirely reasonable admissions criterion for Ivy-level schools.</p>
<p>Princeton (or Harvard, or Yale, or Stanford) can’t take everyone who is academically qualified to attend. Who’s to say that these students wouldn’t have been admitted if admissions gave no weight to their racial background? At the Ivies, soft or non-academic factors are hugely important. Top schools are not looking only for the 2400 SAT, 36 ACT, 7.85 GPA students.</p>
<p>
Your assessment seems to be that the son would not have gotten in under any circumstances, in which case you could have just told her that it was likely he was rejected because he was a crappy candidate.</p>
<p>I am certain, sylvan, that would have gone over beautifully.</p>
<p>NSM, Your endless patience and graciousness in this thread, and at CC, is a real gift. Thank you.</p>
<p>I think many posters on this thread are raising some very valid points.</p>
<p>Ha. You are all missing the point.</p>
<p>The problem is that the OP is upset because the white woman felt comfortable enough to make that kind of remark to the OP. While it is possible, it is unreasonable to assume said white woman is so obtuse that she will simply express herself in such an indelicate manner to another person who happens to be a person “of color.” The reasonable assumption is that the white woman felt comfortable enough with the acquaintance and thought the OP would be reasonable enough to consider the possible validity of the white woman’s comment. After all, URM status does play a role in college admissions; the OP herself understands this. Why should the OP be “appalled” at the possibility that this white student was passed over due to his “whiteness”?</p>
<p>The OP may be struggling with the possibility that she was treated as an equal; however, the OP’s ethnic background may be creating certain personal doubts and insecurities. You are a black person; you know black people sometimes receive a college admissions “boost” due to their “blackness”; why would you be shocked if another person made this suggestion?</p>
<p>It seems the OP created this thread seeking reassurance that this white lady was “mean” and “racist” and that the OP’s skin color had little to do with her success; never mind that the OP already confirmed she found success in Detroit due to her skin color. The OP’s social circle may be in fact largely white and the OP wants to reassure herself she is there because of her abilities and not her skin color.</p>
<p>Seriously… “we sound white”; do French people sound non-white?</p>
<p>I agree with most of your post, Enginox, however we all know what “sounding black” means. No need to beat around the bush there or pretend that there is no such thing. I too am failing to see what was so appalling about the white woman’s comments, since the color-reversed situation would not have been considered so.</p>
<p>I think the only attitude you can have towards affirmative action is to just accept that “it is what it is”.</p>
<p>To the white parent who is sure Biffy’s spot at Harvard was taken by a black kid, I would simply say, “it is what it is”.</p>
<p>On the flip side, to the minority parent who is understandably miffed by the stigmatization of affirmative action, I would also offer, “it is what it is.”</p>
<p>To parents of all shapes, sizes, and colors trying to figure out this admissions game, I would urge them to understand that admissions takes place within sorted stacks of applications. The white kids are competing in the white kid stack. The African American kids are competing in the African American stack. The Latino/a kids are competing in the Latino/a stack. And, deny it to the cows come home as they do, the admissions officers have target quotas they are trying to hit from each stack.</p>
<p>It is what it is. I support affirmative action, but I’m not blind to the glaring problems with race-based admissions, not the least the least of which is listening to Biffy’s mom complain.</p>
<p>"If not, why single the individual out as an athlete? In the case of the legacy student or faculty child, it is less obvious but the person remains suspect until said person proves otherwise; this is similar to a situation where the coach’s son is a starter in the basketball team. "</p>
<p>Do you really sit around and wait for your classmates to prove themselves worthy? Get a life. Focus on yourself and what you want to accomplish, not whether the black kid or the faculty kid or the kid from Idaho or the football player or the third-gen legacy whose last name is the same as the dorm “deserve” to be there. I would be mortified and disappointed if my kids thought like that</p>
<p>I think interested dad is right on and here’s the great thing. If a college’s affirmative action policies and practices are upsetting, you can always apply elsewhere!</p>
<p>I tend to agree with interesteddad on this one. The only point I would make concerns the notions of being “qualified.” Most institutions say that there were more qualified applicants than spots available. Do you really think we would say that there were fewer? Seriously, though, even if all matriculants are capable of doing the work, some are much better than others. Moreover, some who are rejected are much stronger students than some who matriculate. </p>
<p>Suppose that Joe and John have taken the same HS courses and have the same extracurriculars. Joe has a 4.0 GPA and a 2300 SAT while John has a 3.8 and 2000. But John has run a 4:10 mile while Joe has run 4:22. When they apply to their favorite Ivy, John is accepted (with the track coach’s support) and Joe is rejected. </p>
<p>For various reasons, I have no problem with these decisions. At the same time, I do consider Joe more qualified. Others will twist themselves into pretzels as they argue that John is actually more qualified (after all, he was accepted). Why not just acknowledge that Joe appears to be a stronger student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I expect my classmates, co-workers, team mates, etc. to be just as qualified as me. I also expect my teachers, managers, coaches, etc. to be better qualified than me. If somewhere along the chain an individual was promoted because of skin color, connections, or any other factor unrelated to the task at hand and said individual is not qualified to occupy that position, a break in the chain is more likely to occur.</p>
<p>In a classroom setting, the performance of my classmates may not always affect my work. Outside of a classroom setting, the performance of my co-workers will affect the quality of my work; the performance of my team mates will affect our gameplay.</p>
<p>If you choose to live in La-La Land, where everyone has a right to equal outcome, be my guest. I prefer to live in a place where the best prepared, best motivated, and best qualified candidates are matched to their appropriate jobs. If that means there will be trade-offs or a certain level of inequality, so be it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that is from your original post, you are looking at all URM’s and ASSUMING they are not as qualified as you are simply due to their ethnicity. If I saw you, would I know that you have super powers that enable you to know somebodys GPA/SAT/ACT/EC’s that qualified them to get into the same school as you? Get over yourself, I can guarantee you there are MANY URM’s, athletes, legacys and developmental admits that are “smarter” and more qualified than you. Sheesh!!</p>
<p>"The problem is that the OP is upset because the white woman felt comfortable enough to make that kind of remark to the OP. While it is possible, it is unreasonable to assume said white woman is so obtuse that she will simply express herself in such an indelicate manner to another person who happens to be a person “of color.” The reasonable assumption is that the white woman felt comfortable enough with the acquaintance and thought the OP would be reasonable enough to consider the possible validity of the white woman’s comment. After all, URM status does play a role in college admissions; the OP herself understands this. Why should the OP be “appalled” at the possibility that this white student was passed over due to his “whiteness”?</p>
<p>Where’s the evidence that her student was passed over because he was white? Just because a URM and an “Indian” student were selected from probably about 20 applicants in our region doesn’t mean that her son was passed over because he was white. </p>
<p>Just because he presumably had excellent stats doesn’t mean he was a shoo-in for Harvard. As we’ve repeatedly said on CC, the Ivies and similar schools are a crap shoot. Having excellent stats only earns one a lottery ticket for admission. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think there’s much more of a chance that Harvard rejected her kid because they didn’t need yet another math geek. If he had had a strong humanities or arts background, he probably would have had better odds.</p>
<p>“Your friend made a comment similar in nature to what the lady in the OP expressed, yet in the first instance you reached the “logical” conclusion that your friend may be correct, while in the second case, you reached the ambiguous conclusion that the lady may be biased?”</p>
<p>In the first case, I said that my experience was that Detroit was very friendly because of how the many people whom I had met there had gone out of their way to offer me jobs and similar things. The city was run by black people, and most of the people who displayed that kindness to me were black. They were obviously delighted to meet a black professional, and while I think that they would have been courteous to a white professional, I don’t think they would have gone out of their way to create and offer jobs to such a person. I believe that my race caused me to be treated more favorably in that situation. Except for the fact that my white friend’s experience was different, I would not have realized that I was receiving treatment better than what people of another race received.</p>
<p>As for her son, he applied to an institution that is historically white and where most of the professors and administrators – including the head of the admissions office – are white males. To my knowledge, all except for one of the local Harvard alum interviewers now (I’m not on the committee now) are white, and the majority of them are white males. Do you seriously think that they would be predisposed to reject white males like themselves?</p>
<p>“Obviously, you want to believe that race has nothing to do with admissions - that it isn’t a “hook”. Either it is, or it isn’t, but from everything I’ve heard, including the study posted by vig180 (post 51), it IS a hook, which means that some people get a boost and others don’t. Is it so hard to believe that there is a position on the line between “they had nothing going for them except their race” and “race had nothing to do with it”?”</p>
<p>As I’ve said, race is a tip factor for admission just like being a prospective humanities or arts major or residing in a state like Mississippi or Idaho or on a farm are tip factors. For that matter, the mood of the admissions officer when s/he reviews your application also can tip one in or out.</p>
<p>“According to you, it is safe to assume that anyone with a NYC accent does not sound white, no? I love how you danced around that issue but it is not highly relevant to the thread.”</p>
<p>I’m from Upstate NY, a part of the country that has very few black people. Most people with my accent are white. I repeatedly have been mistaken for being white when talking to people on the phone. This includes a real estate agent who said very racist things about black people when I was interviewing her in order to find an agent to sell my house.</p>
<p>People of all races have NYC accents. The Upstate NY accent is very different from that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course! And it is all so very true!</p>
<p>Harvard did not accept the white student because the school admitted a black student and a student from India, and … more than 2,000 other students, including a few more from India and a few more blacks. All those 2000+ admits had one thing in common, and that is they were perceived better candidates to form the class of freshmen that Harvard wanted. </p>
<p>So, it is true that Harvard did not accept the son because they picked someone else. They picked someone who fits the profile for the next class better than the son . And he is in good company with about 28,000 other applicants who are left to speculate about the reasons for their rejection.</p>
<p>The reality is that there is NOTHING to say when people speculate about why their children did not get the nod, and this includes pretending that affirmative action does not exist or that it does not benefit the minority applicants. The latter being just as bad as agreeing to discuss the subject or directing conversations to the theme of admission at selective schools. </p>
<p>But that is not WHY this applicant was rejected.</p>
<p>From the OP,
</p>
<p>Enginox wrote,
</p>
<p>No, the reasonable assumption is that racism is still woven into the fabric of our society.</p>
<p>I cannot count the number of parents here at CC, and women like the one who made the statement to NSM, who automatically assume that their child’s “spot” was taken by a person of color. I never hear someone say, "He didn’t get in because they accepted
-an athlete
-a legacy
-a kid whose parents donated X million dollars
-a trumpet player, a kid who is excellent in debate or whatever else the college was looking for that year.</p>
<p>Why aren’t parents up in arms about that? Where is the rage? Where is the assumption that one’s child was not admitted because the school took someone who can kick a ball really well?</p>
<p>Instead the assumption is race. Why is that assumped to the “reasonable” conclusion?</p>
<p>We don’t hear women bitterly relating alleged conversations between guidance counselors and the LAC they wanted to attend that accepted a “less qualified” male for the sake of gender diversity. Women are not socialized to believe that things are theirs for the taking with the only “reasonable” conclusion being that someone “less qualified” has screwed them over.</p>
<p>The reasonable thing is to accept the fact that you will never know why your child was not admitted. I don’t care who told you what…you will never really know.</p>
<p>A Washington University professor’s research about race and voices:</p>
<p>"Many Americans can guess a caller’s ethnic background from their first hello on the telephone.</p>
<p>However, the inventor of the term “linguistic profiling” has found in a current study that when a voice sounds African-American or Mexican-American, racial discrimination may follow…</p>
<p>n studying this phenomenon through hundreds of test phone calls, John Baugh, Ph.D., the Margaret Bush Wilson Professor and director of African and African American Studies in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, has found that many people made racist, snap judgments about callers with diverse dialects.</p>
<p>Some potential employers, real estate agents, loan officers and service providers did it repeatedly, says Baugh. Long before they could evaluate callers’ abilities, accomplishments, credit rating, work ethic or good works, they blocked callers based solely on linguistics.</p>
<p>Such racist reactions frequently break federal and state fair housing and equal employment opportunity laws.</p>
<p>While Baugh coined the term linguistic profiling, there is nothing new about the prejudice, as observing his mother’s phone conversations taught him. Even now it still is only a sideline in his scholarship as the nation’s foremost expert on varied African-American English, also called Ebonics.</p>
<p>It was not until he was about 38, with a doctoral degree, before he ever considered researching linguistic profiling. After being appointed to the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavior at Stanford University, he went shopping for a house for his family, then living in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>He telephoned agents advertising houses. When he made those calls he used what he calls his “professional” English. Even George Bernard Shaw’s fictitious linguist Henry Higgins would not conclude that he is African-American using that voice.</p>
<p>All agents seemed eager to show him houses for sale. When he showed up, most welcomed him warmly, but four, surprised by his race, told him the properties were no longer available.</p>
<p>“I could do a comedy routine about reactions and what they didn’t say.”</p>
<p>No one ever told him, “Oh, we didn’t know you were black on the phone,” but their eyes popped and the unsaid remarks would be the core of his stand-up comic monologue, he says.</p>
<p>Beyond the comedy, he recognized a serious racist problem.</p>
<p>Instead of just wondering what would have happened if he telephoned using an African-American dialect, he did an experiment. He made a series of three telephone calls using both styles of English and then a Mexican-American accent. The Standard English voice got better treatment."
[Linguistic</a> profiling: The sound of your voice may determine if you get that apartment or not | Newsroom | Washington University in St. Louis](<a href=“http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/6500.aspx]Linguistic”>Linguistic profiling: The sound of your voice may determine if you get that apartment or not - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis)</p>