I wish I weren't Asian

College Confidential Community
301

<p>previous issues:
Re: Test scores. Fab, you are way more focused on test scores than the Ivies are. I know several students (one Asian, the rest white) who 2 yrs. got into several Ivies, Stanford , & MIT, one into a top LAC; their scores projected onto the new scale would have ranged 2170-2250. However, their total academics were in the stratosphere, as was the type of h.school they attended, which was super-preparatory. Their e.c.'s rocked -- not only because they had been doing them for up to 15 yrs. but because they were nationally & internationally awarded in them, & because they did more than one such e.c. simultaneously, & some of these e.c.'s were more unusual than others. And none of them were from the NE. The colleges looked at the <em>whole</em> package & judged them desirable material. I believe that none of them got an 800 on the Math; the h.s.'s math program is its weakest aspect. Some of them got 800's on the Verbal. </p>

<p>Re: Test Prep, which you believe is just as accessible to URM's.<br>
It's not just a question of money as in cash, although for substantial & continued improvement in scores, it's difficult to match individually what one can attain in a paid premium-priced program. More importantly, it's a question of available time to do the prep, paid or not, because time is being spent either being employed or in extra hours with h.s. academics if the h.s. has fewer resources than a fully-resourced private prep school or high-rent public. Naturally the same thing would apply, and often does, to the new immigrant family (including Asian). Son/daughter is often helping out in the family store, family restaurant, other struggling family enterprise; & certainly the family would not have discretionary funds to pay for the kinds of test prep that many NE students have & do, as a matter of routine.</p>

302

<p>Bay,</p>

<p>I forgot to thank you.</p>

<p>It will be tough if I can learn the procedures required to start an initiative. It's so easy for pro-affirmative action supporters to spin statements and make them appear racist.</p>

<p>When I say that I don't support racial preferences, you interpret that to mean I don't support diversity.</p>

<p>When I say that Blacks should be treated equally, you interpret that to mean that I don't have any close Black friends.</p>

<p>I live in a Georgian city where approximately half the population is Black. My high school is quite integrated, and when I look at a fellow Black student, I see a human, not a color.</p>

<p>Thanks for telling me about some of your tricks. I'll be sure to consider them in the future.</p>

<p>I'm all for diversity. </p>

<p>I'm all for equal treatment.</p>

<p>I'm just totally against racial preferences.</p>

303

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Did you ever think that individuals in certain groups are given preferential treatment? To use a phrase coined by IsleBoy, it's a "definitional."</p>

<p>Group policies are most certainly not a fantasy in my head. If they were, then please explain why Ms. Rapeleye has not denied their existence at her institution. Hmm?</p>

<p>You want to talk about antiderivatives. I want to talk about indefinite integrals. Either way, we get the same answer. Elites practice racial preferences. You can call that "diversity" if you like. Doesn't bother me as I know what you're talking about. I'll be sure to keep this in mind, as well. Diversity as defined by race-based affirmative action supporters is a codeword for racial preference.</p>

<p>Page 31 of "The Changing Source of the River" states that in 1995, there were 184 Black students who achieved critical reading scores higher than 700. In that same year, there were 616 Blacks who achieved math scores higher than 700.</p>

<p>So, how many high quality institutions are there in our nation whose average sectional SAT scores are above 700? I don't know, but I can tell you that the pool of +700 Black applicants isn't enough to satisfy each school's "diversity" goal.</p>

<p>Besides, some of these students may choose to take merit scholarships at public universities. Some may choose to consider the schools that we Asians are recommended to look at. Some may even decide to serve their nation by attending a service academy. The result? A further depleted pool of high scoring Blacks.</p>

<p>I anticipate at least two complaints from my source. One, it comes from Dr. Nieli, who is loathed by several pro-affirmative action supporters on this thread. Two, it's old data.</p>

<p>Lastly, there's nothing "wrong" with a 700. Nor is there anything "wrong" with a score below 700. What is wrong, however, is telling a student that he's qualified to attend a school by virtue of his skin color, "leadership potential", or "charm" when his peers arrive far more academically qualified than he.</p>

304

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>I agree with Jian Li's statement, and it sums up his case pretty well, also. He's not saying that people with the highest SAT scores should be admitted to universities. He acknowledgest hat many things should be considered, just not race.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/13/news/16544.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/11/13/news/16544.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Am I for test scores? Sure am. I think they make it very easy to compare applicants. Do I think it should just be test scores? No. Many things can and should be considered. Race is not one of them.</p>

<p>There's a whole lot of presuppositions (famous word!) in that second paragraph about test prep. Do you know the "URM" has fewer time than the son of the Boston Brahmin? Do you know that the immigrant family operates an enterprise? Do you know that this "URM" lives in the inner city as opposed to the suburbs?</p>

305

<p>Here's an article that sums up alot of the issues being discussed here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

306

<p>I have concluded that IsleBoy is correct, in that, fabrizio, you do not debate the issues at hand by continuing lines of argument, not to mention real-life examples, that have been brought into discussion. Rather, you prefer to dwell in the land of theoreticals, the land that Elites are not operating in, in 2007. (Nor operated in 2003)</p>

<p>"Just race" was never the issue with Jian Li's waitlisting at Princeton. "Just race" is not the issue for other Ivies, regardless of the race of the applicant. No one gets in or doesn't get in, over "just race." </p>

<p>In an earlier post, you seemed to imply that "1" point would be an acceptable score diversion, but not 100 points. You seemed to believe that it was a typo on my part. This just reconfirms your utter obsession with numerical factors. What I am telling you is that <em>majority</em> -race students (INCLUDING ASIANS) have been accepted to HYPSM in the last several years with <150 max. SAT I scores. But you never address this, nor did Jian Li, ever. If there didn't happen to be any <2250-score Asian students accepted to Princeton in the admission year of the very-limited-data "study," that does not mean that Asians "needed" 2400's to be admitted. The 2400-score Asians (or highly scoring Asians) would have to have had something more significant, more compelling than scores, to be admitted, and THAT's what got them admitted, NOT their scores. How do I know that? Because Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia REJECTED White perfect scorers & Asian perfect scorers that very same admission year.</p>

<p>Yes, I do know that financially challenged URM's have less time than the sons of Boston Brahmins. I do know that. I teach them. And anyone who has really "been around", & taken in environments in a non-superficial way, including any sons of Boston Brahmins (if they have been around), knows that. And yes, I know that recent immigrants from Asia & southeast Asia who have blue-collar jobs -- not a profession -- "employ" their children in that enterprise, most often, or in some fashion. It is much more common to do so than not to do so. And blacks who are financially struggling are looked at differently by colleges than middle-class blacks, although it will continue to be important for blacks of any class & location to be a presence at private Universities, from the University's perspective. If you don't like that, you should take that up with the colleges. But it is the financially challenged blacks who will be esp. affected by lack of access to test prep time & test prep funds, & yes, the vast majority of those live in urban areas.</p>

307

<p>Thanks for that link, Bay. Drosselmeier has been addressing Myths 1, 3, 6. And I've been addressing mostly Myth 10. However, I think you yourself, & perhaps one other poster, put it into perspective, earlier. It's really about exposure & experience. There is a built-in resistance & defensiveness about such findings, unless one has seen the results up-close, & in a variety of situations, & over time. There is a tendency by the comfortable majority to intellectualize the issues, rather than experience the functioning of them.</p>

<p>With today's enormous volume of competitive & excellent candidates, the array of multi-racial talent, promise, ability, & proven accomplishment is spectacular. Even if a private or a public were focused on public policy or "social engineering," there is no need to put aside excellence AGAINST or "in preference to" race. But to me, the biggest selling point as to why Elites do not choose race "as opposed to" excellence (which is, of course, a racist thing to say anyway, in my book) is that Privates are driven & oriented by economic motives revolving around stature, reputation, popularity, ranking, etc. -- not just for "marketing" purposes, but also to attract the most productive, promising faculty. They would never compromise those aspects by making choices which would limit the pool of talent.</p>

308

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>I don't debate the "issues at hand"? Is that so?</p>

<p>I don't want to offend you when I say this, but I might as well.</p>

<p>You didn't answer the questions I asked you a few pages back. You evaded them with a long and elaborate post. My questions were the issues at hand. I asked; you did not answer, instead claiming that I "still do not understand what elites want."</p>

<p>Also, you still haven't told me whether or not Ms. Rapeleye has firmly denied the existence of group preferences. Has she?</p>

<p>There is only one issue at hand. All that gerrymandering and power struggle stuff IsleBoy brought up just clouded this one issue.</p>

<p>Should certain races be preferentially treated?</p>

<p>My answer is a resounding NO. Why is this question so difficult for supporters of race based affirmative action to answer?</p>

<p>While I disagree with Drosselmeier's views, I respect the fact that he's the only supporter of race-based affirmative action who has directly answered that question, and I commend him as such.</p>

<p>I'm fine with a holistic system that addresses many factors, including scores. Race, however, should not be considered. Weight isn't considered, height isn't considered, body composition isn't considered, hair color isn't considered, eye color isn't considered, so why should race?</p>

<p>I'm fine with diversity. Actually, I think being in contact with students from different backgrounds is a wonderful thing. I get the chance to interact with people I otherwise would never have met.</p>

<p>I can believe in diversity while rejecting racial preferences. Can you? I don't think you can because the way you define diversity requires preferential treatment for certain races.</p>

<p>If no one gets in or is rejected by "just race," then we might as well ditch its use. You're telling me that it doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Why support it then? Maybe because it does have an effect, and a large one at that?</p>

<p>OK, you've misunderstood me. You said that student A's GPA was 100 points lower than that of student B. Did student A have a negative GPA? Does student B have a GPA in the multi-hundreds level? My assumption that you meant one point does not reflect my "obsession with numbers." It reflects the fact that there's no way that one student's GPA can be 100 points lower than another student's and still be competitive. All the "leadership qualities" and "charm" in the world can't save a student whose GPA is 5 / 100. I'm sure you'll agree with me on that, although you might get mad at my resorting once again to "theoreticals."</p>

<p>Again, there is only one issue. Should certain races be preferentially treated? And again, I give you my answer - no. No race should be preferentially treated. That includes mine, yours, and anyone else's.</p>

<p>I'm a big supporter of affirmative action as defined by aggressive nondiscrimination. I'm highly against affirmative action as defined by racial preferences. And, if this doesn't exist, I'm still perplexed as to why Ms. Rapeleye has not denied its existence.</p>

309

<p>
[quote]
I'm fine with a holistic system that addresses many factors, including scores. Race, however, should not be considered. Weight isn't considered, height isn't considered, body composition isn't considered, hair color isn't considered, eye color isn't considered, so why should race?

[/quote]
Because no one has ever been enslaved and denied the opportunity to grow and develop because of ANY of these reasons, EXCEPT race – and only ONE race in America has EVER been enslaved because of race – blacks.</p>

<p>You keep saying “racial preferences”, but this is really a misnomer. AA does not prefer blacks over others. Instead, it seeks to recognize the historical reality that affects every American black, whether he is rich or poor, namely, that being black in America has ALWAYS posed a problem for blacks, causing them to suffer a lot of downward pressure when it comes to their chance for success. Hair color never did this. The fact is, preferences AGAINST black skin have always existed in America, even to the point of causing slavery. Eye color never did this. Racism is why, though blacks have been here longer than every other group in America save for whites and Native Americans, they as a group are at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Height or body composition never did anything like this.</p>

<p>And there is no genetic inferiority at work here, either. That is just something that people wish to say to justify their own wickedness. The evidence for this is quite easily seen when we look at the earliest blacks to come here, even the first twenty Africans. Those folks were enslaved, forced to work against their will. But because whites at the time didn’t really see themselves as “whites”, the blacks were pretty much treated like every other person in the servant class. The English saw themselves as representatives of the apex of humanity, and everyone else was just inferior, including the Poles, the Irish, the Scots, the Germans, the Italians, and the blacks. That is why when the first blacks were bought, the wealthier English just threw them in the communities with the lower whites. Those blacks lived with the whites, even in the same homes. They worked with them, escaped with them, and married them. When those blacks were released, they were treated the same as the “whites” when they were released. And many of those blacks became some of the wealthiest members of those earliest communities – not just a little more wealthy – a LOT wealthier than most whites.</p>

<p>But by the mid to late 1600’s, that began to change. It changed because of a lot of factors. As members of the servant class were continually freed, they began to compete for land against wealthier owners, tobacco prices were plummeting, tobacco stripped the land of nutrients so that new land was always in demand, planters saw how hard it was for black servants to escape, since their being so few in a relatively huge white skinned population made them stand out. All of this and more pointed to one thing, saving money and lowering competition by forcing the servant class into perpetual servitude. It began with just black servants, leaving the children of those servants free. Then whites declared that even the children of blacks would be born into perpetual slavery. This attached a slave status to the actual bloodline, condemning blacks and destroying them here on these cursed shores. Blacks were declared “alien”, and that declaration permitted the state to steal the accumulated wealth of blacks. This race-based theft continued to compound from the 1600’s right up until the 1970’s. It continues to this day because blacks were never permitted the freedom to develop institutions and culture as other groups have done. This means there is a de facto racism against blacks, that prefers all other groups above blacks. What AA attempts to do is lessen the downward pressure already against this group, and that was centuries in the making.</p>

<p>The minute we start this talk “equality”, referring to doing nothing to address the issue of the historical reality that blacks face, we talk a lot of nonsense. It is like kicking a guy in his face for an hour, and then putting him in a boxing match with a guy who is fresh and strong, claiming all this hogwash is fair and equal.</p>

310

<p>
[quote]
I have concluded that IsleBoy is correct, in that, fabrizio, you do not debate the issues at hand by continuing lines of argument, not to mention real-life examples, that have been brought into discussion. Rather, you prefer to dwell in the land of theoreticals, the land that Elites are not operating in, in 2007. (Nor operated in 2003)

[/quote]
Well this kid is like most, really. Too many kids live in a fantasy world, and think everyone else has to live in that fantasy. Many of them only learn after they enter the real world that there is a difference between the two. Some never learn, and turn into adults who talk nonsense. I don’t even expect this particular kid to address the issues. What I think is important is that we use his objections to post good responses – because his objections are undoubtedly shared by plenty of other folks. You have posted some of the best responses on these issues, far better than anything I could have written. It is really something special for me because to be honest, I had kinda thought it pretty impossible for white folk to even get a little bit of a clue about the stuff that is going on in black communities.</p>

<p>I tutor and mentor (or whatever one might call it), informally, in the black community. So do my wife and kids. We have done it for twenty years. When I look at what I have seen over the years, and then compare it to all these high scoring, well-educated kids talking about their hating being Asian (which is just total and complete nonsense), I just think these people need to grow up and get real. My goodness.</p>

<p>I also think it would be great to see these people start their “civil rights initiatives”. I challenge them to go out and do this because they will inevitably come up against some cold realities about human beings in the process. I predict not a single one of them will ever do it, because it takes a lot of self-sacrifice – too much for most. It takes time and a lot of heartache to do this stuff. The pay is VERY low. Since most of the kids who whine here are easily more apt to get some engineering job or whatever it is they wish to do, they are not going to give up all that to help usher in some “race-blind” society (even if only for college admissions), “for make benefit of glorious group mankind”. They won’t even do it “later on in life” because life will just be too good to allow it. As long as they are getting what they or their parents came here to get (and obviously they are getting it), they will go on and keep getting it, at best whining about not getting more. It comes from the human condition. We are innately selfish.</p>

<p>What I hope happens with AA is that more blacks begin to fight to destroy it. That will signal to me that its proper end has come. I really don’t want Asians or whites to kill this thing because the last thing I want to see is yet another reason for blacks to feel they don’t belong here. We need to get more Ward Connerlys, Clarence Thomases, and Thomas Sowells and other blacks to kill it. I obviously reject these people’s opinions and approaches. But lets face it, when blacks get to the point where they sense their own academic potency and strength against history and racism, and where they have strong enough conviction to stand up against the status quo, we should expect them to be offended by any sort of policy that addresses them in particular. So, while I reject their views, I want to see them prevail against me. I don’t think we are there yet, at least not judging from the folks I see. My goodness, we are really taking it on the chin. But apparently guys like Sowell are already there. We just have to keep fighting them until they win.</p>

311

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If I were truly "like most," then I'd be happy, honestly. It would show that Dr. Nieli correctly described my generation as one that firmly believes in the meritocratic ideal.</p></li>
<li><p>Thank you for the encouragement. I'll do my best to make sure that I teach myself about the necessary steps to start an initiative. Not because I'm a big fan of Kazakhstan's weightlifting team (and Ilya Ilin in particular), but because I believe that no one in this country should be discriminated against based on his race.</p></li>
<li><p>As far as debating the issues, sir, there is but one. Of all affirmative action supporters, you are the only one who has definitively answered that question. Your answer is "yes." My answer is "no."</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]

What I hope happens with AA is that more blacks begin to fight to destroy it. That will signal to me that its proper end has come. I really don?t want Asians or whites to kill this thing because the last thing I want to see is yet another reason for blacks to feel they don?t belong here. We need to get more Ward Connerlys, Clarence Thomases, and Thomas Sowells and other blacks to kill it. I obviously reject these people?s opinions and approaches. But lets face it, when blacks get to the point where they sense their own academic potency and strength against history and racism, and where they have strong enough conviction to stand up against the status quo, we should expect them to be offended by any sort of policy that addresses them in particular. So, while I reject their views, I want to see them prevail against me. I don?t think we are there yet, at least not judging from the folks I see. My goodness, we are really taking it on the chin. But apparently guys like Sowell are already there. We just have to keep fighting them until they win.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This quotation surprised me.</p>

<p>I believe that if you want to see more people like Ward Connerly, Justice Thomas, Dr. Sowell, and Dr. Shelby Steele, then you should heed some of their suggestions, especially those from Drs. Sowell and Steele.</p>

<p>You're telling me that unless a Black person is treated differently, then he will feel he doesn't belong in this nation. I disagree. Maybe it's because I'm not Black. Maybe it's because we're a generation apart. But, I can never believe that Blacks have "built-in downward pressures" and "feel this country disowns them." I wonder how Dr. Bill Cosby would feel if you told him that in person.</p>

<ol>
<li>I reiterate. There's only one issue here, and so far, other affirmative action supporters haven't given a straight answer to that.</li>
</ol>

312

<p>"other affirmative action supporters haven't given a straight answer to that."</p>

<p>I disagree. Many have. Isn't this the thread (or is it the Jian Li one?) when an admissions officer came on to describe how AA works in admissions?</p>

313

<p>fab,
I took the trouble to review my earlier posts, to see what the issue was over the 100-point business. I see that I did make a typo. I did not mean GPA; I meant score. But it doesn't really matter, because your previous posts were so focused on scores, anyway, & on what the Ivies consider relatively minor differences. It's not just that they see scores as "part of a package." It's more that one offsets the other, often, & more often scores as a correction against GPA. Thus, if one does have an outstanding GPA, but ALSO outstanding recommendations & other affirming aspects to that GPA, but scores that do not quite match nor an income/environment that matches, the college will often be able to understand the reason for that discrepancy. Versus a high-income kid with great, even perfect, scores, & lots of privileged e.c.'s but who slacked off in his classroom work. Versus someone of any background in a such a demanding high school with such capable peers that it is extremely hard to get a 4.0; the student has taken many challenging courses & in some of those has possibly rec'd some B+'s; rec's are great; scores confirm the ability of the student. You get the picture. </p>

<p>Neither scores nor grades are stand-alones. Nor are the 2 components just added together numerically, to be set against a student from a different race, to compare students in the context of "racial groups." (!) Both are evaluated qualitatively, in the context of the entire profile of the individual student as a student.</p>

<p>But I think Drossel said it so much better than I, when it comes to the Big Picture. You have not yet seen the big picture, fab, because it's experience & practicalities you need, not theoreticals. When you get more experience in the world, you'll see that the theoreticals do not apply, cannot apply or be transferred cross-culturally as an equivalent, at least in the universal way you assume. Whether or not, Drossel, he views the effort later as "low pay" or out of sync with a comfort level, he will certainly see how the issues he raised, in the way he raised them, will not be received as civil rights cases.</p>

314

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Well, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Score makes more sense, but at the time I thought you meant 1*.*00 point in a 4.0 scale.</p>

<p>Momwaitingfornew,</p>

<p>This is the thread where AdOfficer came. I still don't know why I was rebuked for supporting his statement that there are many great colleges in this nation and "THE college" doesn't matter as long as the student is happy with "A college."</p>

<p>In any case, I've finally figured out the first step in starting an initiative like Prop 2 or Prop 209, and I'll see what I can learn from there.</p>

315

<p>
[quote]
I believe that if you want to see more people like Ward Connerly, Justice Thomas, Dr. Sowell, and Dr. Shelby Steele, then you should heed some of their suggestions, especially those from Drs. Sowell and Steele.

[/quote]
I am not interested in having more Tom Sowells just for the sake of it. I have a genuine disagreement with these cats on Affirmative Action. But I know the implications of having a majority of blacks naturally taking Tom Sowell’s view. If we can get a majority of blacks to think as he does, and to think it naturally, in response to the experiences they are incurring (which is to say we need to get them having the reason [and potential for wealth] that enables them to hope and think as he does), then I’ll be happy to lose the war against these guys. I’d be happy because it will mean that blacks are finally part of a culture that enjoys being American. Currently, that is not the case – at least not as far as I can see. But if we keep harvesting high performing blacks and pushing them deliberately toward higher education, we will definitely have that culture – and it will only take a handful of generations. If I could get 70% of blacks to think like Tom Sowell, though I reject his view, I’d jump up and down. I’d even pull an Obi Won Kenobi on that cat, just up and let him strike me down. We can’t get there by my accepting what I know from cold hard experience is just a whole lot of foolishness.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're telling me that unless a Black person is treated differently, then he will feel he doesn't belong in this nation.

[/quote]
I ought not have to keep saying this stuff over and over again to get you to be honest about it. You don’t have to agree with it. Just be honest. I am saying that blacks are already being treated differently, that they have been treated differently since the very first day they arrived here. It means blacks already feel they don’t belong. To work against this different treatment, we ought to keep in mind just how different blacks have been and are being treated, and take it in consideration as we make judgments on who has worked hard and who really has chutzpah.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I disagree. Maybe it's because I'm not Black. Maybe it's because we're a generation apart. But, I can never believe that Blacks have "built-in downward pressures" and "feel this country disowns them."

[/quote]
Well, then there we go. Even if its true, you can never believe it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wonder how Dr. Bill Cosby would feel if you told him that in person.

[/quote]
There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Cosby thinks blacks suffer systemic racism every single day of their lives. I have read him saying as much. His wife also knows it, and even she has said as much.</p>

316

<p>One example is the now infamous Tulia, Tex., drug sting. With no drugs, no money and no weapons recovered, **10 percent of the black population* of this small town was arrested and convicted on the word of one corrupt undercover police officer. The sentences ranged from 20 to 341 years. Only after the Legal Defense Fund and other lawyers represented these individuals in post-conviction proceedings were they released...*</p>

<p>*Following a recent conversation, Cosby and I agreed on this much: To the extent that he is frustrated and angry about the failure of people to be responsible parents, and about senseless crime and violence, I stand with him; to the extent that we continue to be challenged by the systemic issues of race and racism that the Legal Defense Fund has confronted since the days of my predecessor, Thurgood Marshall, Bill Cosby stands with me. </p>

<p>There is no either/or for anyone who truly works in the interests of African Americans and our nation.*
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59055-2004May26.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59055-2004May26.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

317

<p>I dunno what the argument is about - we all recognize that Affirmative Action is unfair andm that people who don't necessarily deserve to get into good schools do so anyway, but that isn't the issue. It's there to correct a social imbalance - whether or not it's doing so is debatable - and sometimes small evils must be done for the greater good.</p>

318

<p>Hey guys...I'm back...Early Decision reading and committee was rough!
Drosselmeier, thanks for clarifying my position in post #209...I'm finding that many folks in this thread are STILL pulling things out of context to benefit their arguments. </p>

<p>I do want to address the expression "racial preference" that keeps popping up here. Affirmative action IS NOT the same thing as "racial preference," to say the least. In admissions, we "prefer" students who are going to add different perspectives, experiences, talents, and values to the institution; we do not prefer one race of student over another. If a student's perspectives, experiences, etc..., have been influenced because of their race, then sure, their race is obviously going to come into the conversation; when considering the diversity of a class, however, one race of student doesn't hold more weight than another in the process. We're looking for a diverse group of students because we know that should everyone at our schools have the same perspectives, experiences, talents, and values, our students would learn nothing from each other. </p>

<p>fabrizio - many people on here have responded directly to your questions and comments on here other than Drosselmeier. I appreciate the fact that you appreciate diversity, but you 1) seem to still be insisting that race is unfairly being used and considered in the admissions process at highly selective schools and 2) seem to be implying that it is used much more than it actually is. The fact of the matter is that scores on tests are not a non-biased measure of academic potential; prejudice exists all over this country in all schools; racism and intimidation based on race prevents many students from succeeding...I could go on. We cannot have a "holistic system" without considering the social factors that have weighed on a student's performance in school; because so many of these social factors involve race, we need to consider it IF WE FEEL IT IS RELEVANT TO A PARTICULAR STUDENT. In addition, just because a student is not an URM student does not mean that their race will not be considered in admissions with respect to the unique perspective, experiences, etc..., that they may have. This year in early decision at my institution, for example, we admitted a white student who attends a predominantly black and Latino high school; his experiences at this high school as a white student gave him a very unique perspective that we thought would add tremendously to our classrooms and he was admitted - despite having SAT scores that were 180 points below our average. This student was also not underprivileged economically, nor was he a legacy, athlete, or development case. In other words, he didn't have any "hooks" necessarily. But we were convinced that 1) he could do the work here (like 90% of the kids who apply) and 2) he would add a unique perspective to our campus.</p>

<p>asiaknight - no, we all do not recognize that affirmative action is unfair. On the contrary, many of us do think it is fair...perhaps you should read some of the previous posts on here more carefully. </p>

<p>I also want to address the whole Jian Li controversy which has popped up all over CC. Here are some important points about this situation: 1) Jian Li applied to schools where over 50% of the students with his "stats" were denied, 2) he applied from a high school where many of his peers applied to the same schools he did, 3) he attended a high school that we could easily consider "privileged" even if he himself (or his family) is not - his high school is one of the best-funded public high schools in New Jersey; his high school serves a community that has one of the highest proportions of college graduates in the nation; his high school offers more AP classes, extracurriculars, art, music, and athletic programs than most schools can only dream of being able to offer, 4) he was involved in relatively few activities - hardly compelling to a place like Princeton. If Princeton - like Penn and Harvard - denied him despite his grades and SAT score, it would probably have been because he did not take advantage of all that was offered to him at his school as compared to others - at least in the eyes of Princeton. This has nothing to do with his race...However, they did not deny him, they waitlisted him - a signal that Princeton thought he was compelling but that there simply wasn't enough space in the class. If one also considers the fact that Princeton takes half its class through early decision and one's chances of being admitted in regular decision are VERY, VERY slim, then his wait-list is actually quite impressive. In addition, no one but the admissions officers who read his application read his essays, which for all we know may have said very little about who he is and why he would be a good fit at Princeton. The "Jian Li argument" against affirmative action is weak...however, it should serve as a good example to all students that we in admissions care about more than just your academic prowess.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is we can't always separate race from the experiences and opportunities that students have had (or not had) growing up. If we lived in a perfect world where everyone was treated equally, then I would agree that race shouldn't be considered in the admissions process at these highly selective schools. But we don't live in that world and sadly probably never will. Thus, we need to evaluate students within the context of opportunites they have (or have not) had in their lives. Just because a student is an URM does not mean that they will benefit from affirmative action; just because a student is a non-URM does not mean they will be discriminated against or held to a higher standard...it's all about what you've done with the opportunities you've had.</p>

319

<p>Once again, AdOfficer, you've supplied an articulate rebuttal to many of the myths flying about CC.</p>

320

<p>I was actually pretty convinced that affirmative action was basically another form of racism, but you cleared that up pretty nicely. Thanks.</p>