<p>I think this is an interesting thread, but I really appreciated an early post which pointed out that the admission of upper-middle class people of color does maybe MORE to add to our true understanding of ourselves and the prisms through which we, erroneously, view the world.</p>
<p>I had a black roommate in college. I say black because that’s what she called herself then. She now calls herself African=American, and I call her that, now, if I even think abou it, as well. She is the godmother of my oldest D, who, oddly enough faced much discrimination in the schools, based on being a gifted dyslexic…a lot of misconceptions about that out there, as well. A lot of educational exceptions which need to be made for that, as well.</p>
<p>Her father was a doctor. My father was a high-school dropout (same dyslexia as D, different era). Both were financially successful. Her father valued education and the family really supported me in my pursuit of an education, when my family really did not. I don’t know if she added “diversity” into my life. Per se. I do know that she has been one of the best friends I’ve ever had and I do know that she wouldn’t have been my roommate if the school hadn’t been pushing for diversity at the time.</p>
<p>I do know that her family has really meant the world to me, and her take on having to work twice as hard at things to get half as much has been invaluable for my D, who adores her.</p>
<p>I don’t really think of her as african-american. I just think of her as my friend. I don’t really “see” Barak Obama in terms of color, either. I see him as a man I sometimes agree with and sometimes do not agree with. The fact that she came from an upper class background did a lot more for all of us, in terms of understanding we are all people than any socio-economic admit would have done. I think talking about 'gaming the system" just brings up the fact that all systems are flawed by nature. It was flawed when it was there to protect caucasions, and it is flawed when it is used against caucasions, and yet…</p>
<p>Nobody on the planet had to create AA to get the administrations to continue to try to keep a female male balance–when the girls clearly have better grades and scores in way higher numbers. Nobody on the planet had to create a law to limit the number of asians when they began to overtake the caucasions in terms of numbers. This is very interesting. Affirmative action if you are african american. “balancing the class” if you are a white male? Very different perspective vis-a-vis the exact same principle. Which is the REASON there has to be a system to “game” in the first place.</p>
<p>poetgrl: I think you have pinpointed the actual point of diversifying college campuses. When you throw into a mix a wide variety of different types of people and experiences; colors and backgrounds eventually it all becomes meaningless and what we see is just the person in front of us. It may not happen to each student, but the more it happens the better it is.</p>
<p>I love this thread… and interestingly, I can find agreement in 90% of the posts and points made. I would hate to go through life thinking I got into anything because of the color of my skin alone. However, I also was hugely insulted when people would suggest my son, who had worked his butt off for the past 12 years, was getting into some of the colleges he did because he was an athlete! </p>
<p>I guess my feelings on this subject are that there has to be a level of ethics across the board. My sister has two adopted kids who are the most privileged kids I know. How many 11 year olds can suggest the morning smells exactly like Tahiti? But… do they bring something uniquely their own to bear when they are vietnamese and cambodian raised by lily white wasps? Probably so.</p>
<p>I do believe that the wealthy black student does a lot to dispel racial stereotypes… and is an accurate use of socioeconomic diversity. I also think the wealthy kid who offers nothing more than the color of his skin is a poor use of ethnic diversity. </p>
<p>When it comes to Obama… his presidency will do more to dispel the misconception of lack of achievement and the African American than any other initiative, affirmative action or otherwise. He didn’t just attend tony schools… he spent a lifetime feeling different, looking different and finding respectful compromise to not only survive but excel. </p>
<p>Fascinating conversation and one that should never be curtailed or limited by statements of political incorrectness.</p>
<p>Two comments. First, a larger and larger proportion of the society IS “interracial” by categories that were first trotted out for policy purposes in the 1960s and 1970s. Princeton, for one, lists on its web page 5.6% of the class of 2012 as interracial. This is a product, I assume, of self-reporting. The real percentage may well be higher.
Second, the narrative I’ve heard of the first attempts to integrate elite schools in the 1960s and 1970s says that the first wave of students were often from poor, urban high schools. Many of these students were unprepared academically and socially for the elite schools of the time and dropped out. Elite college admissions started to screen more and more for minority students who were “prepared”, generally meaning kids from well educated, often high income, families.
I think what you observed, shawbridge (and I’ve seen the same thing), has to do with these factors. One does wonder if the old categories make sense in the same way they were first envisioned.</p>
<p>I think cynical people might well imagine a college admissions committee secretly saying (or thinking): “We need more black people. But can’t we find some that aren’t all THAT black?” Are they doing this when they admit black kids from well-to-do professional families, or multiracial kids who are only part black, or recent African immigrants? Although I suppose this could be true, my suspicion is that what’s really happening is that minority kids from truly impoverished environments who nevertheless have the minimum academic qualifications for selective schools are just too few to create enough diversity.</p>
<p>My D has a good friend who is mixed race. She has always been part of the black community in every way possible. Her father, who is black, was the victim of a highly-publicized violent attack because of his race. The subsequent lawsuits made the family very wealthy, but they have no college background and no privilege other than the fact that the father survived a horror. I wonder what this girl will do next year when she applies. She is unquestionably a member of the African-American community, spent most of her life just getting by, but is now rich on paper, is a very smart and accomplished girl, and has blond hair and blue eyes. Confusing, no? But I’m confident she’ll be a smashing addition to any college. How could she not be?</p>
<p>My two cents. Diversity is a very broad term. Even if this particular kid is rich and has highly educated parents, I strongly believe they should count as adding a diversity to a college.
Considering diversity based on income and educational level is a very narrow point of view.</p>
<p>Our local high school is a school that is 40% Hispanic, 40% white, 10% Af-Am, and 10% other. Our high achieving, low income URM kids do spectacularly well in the college application process when it comes to the super-selective schools with single digit acceptance rates. I volunteer in the college center at our high school, so I have knowledge of the top kids at the school.</p>
<p>In the past 9 years that I have volunteered, I have seen 5 of such high achieving, low income URM kids. I agree with Hunt that there just aren’t enough of those kids to provide enough diversity for the many quality universities that would like to be more diversified.</p>
<p>why people always equate URM with low income? are we so narrow minded that we think all URM should be low income? or do you only consider to be diversity URM who are low income?</p>
<p>Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Should a selective school prefer a minority student from a poor family and a weak high school to a minority student from a well-to-do family and a strong high school? It depends on what you’re trying to accomplish with your diversity policy. If what you really want is just racial diversity, it’s probably going to be a lot easier to deal with the richer kid.</p>
<p>Anecdotal but I know a low-income black male student denied at Ivies this spring with 700+ SAT scores, top 10% of his class, AP classes, good ECs. He’s a fabulous kid and could have really benefitted from Ivy level financial aid. He was admitted a little further down the food chain but with loans.</p>
<p>Pardon? How in the world would you be qualified to make that call? People do not land on the shores of America and have their memories erased. </p>
<p>I personally know a lot of children of immigrants who do not speak their parents language but through everything ranging from food to religion to holidays, they are raised in two cultures; American and the old country.</p>
<p>The whole idea that high income and high education takes anyone out of the diversity group is narrow minded. And, a good reason why colleges should strive for diversity in whatever form they could find it.</p>
<p>I dont think the point is that high income and high education takes anyone out of URM status. I think the original point was… does being white automatically keep you out of the diversity pile. </p>
<p>There are so many aspects to diversity. And I guess when all these colleges talk about their commitment to diversity it’s going to be about asking the questions about how that particular school defines it. Some schools look at loans as a way to level the playing field of financially disadvantaqed students and this policy brings a strong presence of socioeconomic diversity. Now certainly there will be URM or people of color (or arent necessarily URM’s) in this group, but they are certainly not always one and the same. </p>
<p>Then there is international diversity where some schools accept a higher number of international students for a host of reasons to add to their diversity numbers. So I don’t think it’s a bad idea to ask schools to define their version of diversity because when you get right down to it… if you really look at the possibilities… all attempts at diversity are generally good in theory. I just get a little peeved when people assume that diversity is just a matter of skin tone AND that the darker the skin the thinner the wallet. It’s a crappy way to think and we owe our kids better than that. </p>
<p>Then there’s families like mine. Don’t qualify for financial aid. White. Make a decent living, but really struggle to make sure our kids have that opportunity. It amazed me that with our older daughter, she had less money at her disposal than a lot of the kids on financial aid! Then there is the article in Fortune regarding Midd where a family has 100K in consumer debt and 200K in educational debt and they qualified for more grant aid due to dad losing his job but they’d been living beyond their means for some time. They still take their vacations, but borrow money for school and get more aid. It’s just a little frustrating… not enough to begrudge, mind you… just a little bit of … what??? :)</p>
<p>In the first place, get down off your high horse and note the use of the word “probably.” Secondly, it is certainly the case that people’s memories aren’t erased upon landing on these shores. Which is why if this particular person has ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge of the language whatever, as s/he says, it is likely that s/he either left Ghana as a small child, or wasn’t born there but here, to immigrant parents. It is also likely that s/he has not spent much time hanging around other people from that culture, since they would probably–there’s that word again–speak the language amongst themselves. That is certainly the case with every immigrant community I know.</p>
<p>Here’s an example: I have immigrant friends whose children were born here. These happen to be well-educated, well-to-do people, who are not clinging to an immigrant community. Both parents received at least a portion of their early education in English, their undergraduate education in another non-native language altogether, and their graduate degrees in the US. So if anyone should be unable to speak the native language of the parents, it would be their children, who also attended private schools with no other speakers of the language in question. Nevertheless, both of their children are able to speak a fair amount of their parent’s original language, and certainly understand even more of it. The parents speak the language in the home to some degree, and they have visited the country in question, and see relatives who speak it, and so forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who grew up genuinely immersed in the culture of the “old country” who isn’t able to speak at least a little of the language. There are millions of people who are what I would consider “culturally American” whose lives haves elements of their parents’ ethnicities: hence all of the hyphenated Americans.</p>
<p>Modanunn, now the days the goverment bails out anyone - homeowners, banks, etc., otherwise, how do you explain that banks are in bankrupcy, and their executives getting millions of $$ in bonuses.</p>
<p>Someone drew a contrast between minorities and “A poor white kid from Appalachia, a student who comes from a Midwestern farm background.”</p>
<p>My impression is that these would be considered “tips” or “hooks” in admission to selective schools, for geographic diversity. These kids often have higher acceptance rates because of the perspective they bring to the campus.</p>
<p>URMs are only URMs when they are URMs. Once any nationality, race, ethnic group is not considered underrepresented, they are not going to be treated as such. In many of the schools in our area, it doesn’t help you a whit to be black or Hispanic. More than half the student body fits that category, so they are not URMs at those schools. They did not get preferential treatment to get into the school</p>
<p>I visited a state school once and noticed a huge number of Asian students, something that was really out of the ordinary. Found out later that it was the day that international students were permitted to move on campus, a bit earlier than the rest of the students. Also, we were in the vicinity of the engineering school barbecue. The combination made for a lot of Asian students, really not representative of the school’s numbers at all.</p>
<p>This discussion is not complete until we consider how admissions are being affected not only by race-based “affirmative action”, but by consideration of a wide gamut of factors that are not measurable, and that do not have much if anything to do with academic merit. More importantly, it’s not complete until we consider what colleges seem to be giving short shrift.</p>
<p>It appears to me that at the top schools, only about half the entering class (plus or minus 15% or so depending on the school) is being admitted primarily on the basis of high grades and test scores. Fire away if you think I’m wrong about this. </p>
<p>Now, are these kids (as well as those with “hooks”) really being evaluated for the diversity of viewpoints, the intellectual curiosity and drive, they would bring to the college community? My impression is that they are not. One reason I come to this conclusion is from observing the interview process. Many schools don’t even require an interview anymore. When they do, it often is conducted by students or by young admissions officers. The questions tend to be pretty insipid, it seems.</p>
<p>Personally, I like the British system for evaluating top students. An American applicant to Oxford or Cambridge has to jump two (and apparently only two) major hurdles: standardized testing, and an interview. The interview is conducted by a faculty member. The questions are thoughtful. There is virtually no consideration of GPA and zero consideration of extracurriculars. Somehow, what emerges is arguably the best, most vibrant system of undergraduate education in the world. The focus is entirely on selecting smart students who are poised and comfortable talking about big ideas. It is not at all about correcting social injustices, boosting a magazine’s market ranking, or pleasing prospective contributors.</p>