Minority really isn't that big of a deal...

Applying to College
41

<p>But diversity can be forced and that's the issue. As Americans we are forced to accept diversity and if you don't you cannot be successful in life. As a free country there are different types of people everywhere. Look at what happened to the South when they could not learn to integrate. </p>

<p>Colleges like Princeton are supposed to educate kids and are known for being the best at it. So I think they have little more than the right to force diversity on their students.</p>

<p>Saying that you do not want to be forced to diversify is like saying you do not want to be forced to accept people who are different from you and that is a little scary.</p>

42

<p>@ TrackBabi17, my response to Tyler ended up being pretty much what I would say in response to your post.</p>

<p>"Charisma, I think you have to understand that a lot of universities see this as a way they can help deal with the problem of education in this country. By putting a little color in their classes it makes opportunities for people more equal."</p>

<p>See, but I do support socioeconomic AA to some extent. What you're describing, inner-city kids, leveling the playing field, whatever, is not a product of their skin color. Disadvantaged kids no doubt would have lower stats, but not because they're black or Hispanic or whatever. </p>

<p>"But if Princeton were to just accept whites and Asians how would that make a diverse student body?"</p>

<p>I think that it would, and it directly contradicts, "Not that I am saying white people do not have diversity within their group, they do."</p>

<p>"Diversity is important on in any institution of higher learning and in any workplace, so I do not think that there proportions would be considered illegal."</p>

<p>Proportions as in having a set number of kids because the country happens to be x% whatever, is illegal, not just considered illegal, however, race being a factor is not.</p>

<p>"Diversity does not only refer to skin color, but in America one's skin color suggests some deeper things into what they have experienced in life, not all the time but a lot of the time because Americans depend on appearances."</p>

<p>It's not as though I disagree with diversity (as in the color of your skin or whatever), I just don't think it is something that should be forced to occur.</p>

43

<p>"As Americans we are forced to accept diversity and if you don't you cannot be successful in life."</p>

<p>I think you're misunderstanding me, I do not support colleges trying to force the student body to reflect the "correct" percentages.</p>

44

<p>I was not contradicting in my statement. Yes, white people have diversity within themselves but that does not mean they should make up a whole body and we can call that diversity. </p>

<p>In America skin color does have something to do with socioeconomic status. I do not think Black people chose to be in the ghetto or chose to live in the boonies after they were released from slavery. A racist history has contributed to the socioeconomic gap in America.</p>

45

<p>I just want it to be known that the Black acceptance rate at elite universities is usually only a few percentage points higher, and is even in some cases lower.</p>

46

<p>The funny thing about "socioeconomic" AA is that it could have the SAME effect as racial AA if a school wants it to. If a school wants more poor people, it can easily just look to overwhelmingly Black/Hispanic/Native American areas and achieve such a goal. </p>

<p>People think that talking about "socioeconomic" AA is a way to undercut a school's ability to get racial AA, but this is quite far from the truth.</p>

47

<p>"A racist history has contributed to the socioeconomic gap in America."</p>

<p>Keyword: contributed, it isn't a direct result.</p>

<p>"The funny thing about "socioeconomic" AA is that it could have the SAME effect as racial AA if a school wants it to. If a school wants more poor people, it can easily just look to overwhelmingly Black/Hispanic/Native American areas and achieve such a goal.</p>

<p>People think that talking about "socioeconomic" AA is a way to undercut a school's ability to get racial AA, but this is quite far from the truth."</p>

<p>I don't have all that much of a problem with the actual effects of AA, considering that the majority of the time, they aren't that drastic, plus I'm already in college so it doesn't affect me. Most of the I problem have with it lies in the ideals behind it. To tell the truth, I almost support just having a Gaokao-ish test determine everything, but it is probably fairer to have some kind of consideration to context, a poor kid in a crappy school with a 2000 vs. a rich kid with college prep since 5th grade with a 2200. I don't think that racial preferences will ever stop as long as it's the PC thing to do, but at least with socioeconomic AA, it isn't the rich black kids who are just as privileged as a rich white kid getting a bump.</p>

48

<p>Wow, this thread turned into pure garbage. Who cares if URM's get the upper hand, if you care that much contact your congressmen(if you can vote) and let them know. I don't really see the point of arguing it over and over on a forum. It is getting nothing done. </p>

<p>If you hate AA so much, stop talking and actually do something.</p>

49

<p>Ok I'll just say a racist history that resulted in the socioeconomic gap in the United States</p>

50

<p>"plus I'm already in college so it doesn't affect me."</p>

<p>-Typical.</p>

<p>"but at least with socioeconomic AA, it isn't the rich black kids who are just as privileged as a rich white kid getting a bump."</p>

<p>-See, I believe that preference based on economic status is the same as preference based on race. To me, a person can’t in the same breath say its wrong to prefer someone based on race but then turn around and say it’s ok to prefer based on economic status. Just because you favor economic diversity over racial diversity doesn't make the former better or more just; that’s morally dubious to me. </p>

<p>Also, if random elite school X announced today that it doesn’t use any racial preferences, and nothing about the school changed, then what? If neither the URM population nor the general student body changed as a result, what would you say? Surely you would have to abandon your argument, unless you want to go as far as saying certain people in the school just “don’t belong there”</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, unless you are an admissions officer at a private school, you really have no idea what goes into the decisions on selecting certain students, save an actual declaration of the process made by the school. The only reason you would know that a school uses any kind of racial preference is that it says so. If all schools were silent about it, then what? I think Anti-AA people would lose a great deal of their arguing strength if this happened.</p>

51

<p>True. They always seem to run on assumptions.</p>

52

<p>There may be a socioeconomic gap, but it isn't as though ALL black people are extremely poor, it's not an absolute, if you are poor, you must be black. If a racist history is causes a socioeconomic gap, why is it that Jewish people and Asians don't have a socioeconomic gap?</p>

<p>dank08, LMAO, why care that much about what some random people are saying on a thread out of thousands? If you hate this thread so much, stop talking and actually do something. Otherwise, shut the hell up.</p>

53

<p>Look into history and you can find out why Blacks have been affected economically by racism, if you didn't already learn this in school.</p>

54

<p>That's the best you can do TrackBabi, "look into history"?</p>

55

<p>There is a difference between an official quota (x number of african americans, x number of girls, etc etc) and a system that results in a diverse student body.</p>

<p>More or less the proportions of girls/boys/minorities is the same every year. It is not entirely impossible that this is simply the result of a diverse applicant body and a holistic admissions system.</p>

<p>Ivies also eschew the actual AI system as far as determining rejection/acceptance, so there is no actual way to determine if someone was 'unjustly' accepted or rejected and such determinations would vary from student to student.</p>

56

<p>people are dying in iraq because of racism! aids are killing africans because of racism! global warming is caused by racism! everything bad is caused by the racist white america!!</p>

<p>see how stupid the above argument sounds?</p>

57

<p>@ kk19131, I don't favor socioeconomic diversity at all. The only reason why I semi-support socioeconomic AA, is because I believe that academic achievements are achieved in a context, which I already stated in my previous post and don't feel like repeating.</p>

<p>Yes, being somewhat selfish is typical of all humans, why should I be ashamed? Would it be preferable to you if I lied?</p>

<p>"Also, if random elite school X announced today that it doesn’t use any racial preferences, and nothing about the school changed, then what? If neither the URM population nor the general student body changed as a result, what would you say?"</p>

<p>I don't care at all about the general student body or the URM population, what matters at me is that people are admitted because of their talents (which environment as a result of economic status can affect, and race cannot) and not the color of their skin. It doesn't matter what a college proclaims it does, it matters whether they are actually practicing race-blind admissions or not. If a school has a admittance rate of 20% for non-URMs and 60% for URMs, sure you can argue that they aren't REALLY considering race, but it is far more likely that they are, and that it enough for me.</p>

<p>"The fact of the matter is, unless you are an admissions officer at a private school, you really have no idea what goes into the decisions on selecting certain students, save an actual declaration of the process made by the school."</p>

<p>Of course, I don't, but who would be foolish enough to believe everything that someone tells you? There are plenty of other ways that one could find out definitively (moreso than just % admitted) about racial preferences, like (theoretically) an disgruntled employee, actual notes/marking that show a preference, whatever.</p>

58

<p>If you are incapable of remembering your civil rights history milki I could catch you up on that. But that would have to happen tonight as I am going to work now.</p>

59

<p>Let it be said again.....</p>

<p>"Ivies also eschew the actual AI system as far as determining rejection/acceptance, so there is no actual way to determine if someone was 'unjustly' accepted or rejected and such determinations would vary from student to student."</p>

60

<p>“what matters at me is that people are admitted because of their talents and not the color of their skin.”</p>

<ul>
<li>Prove that this happens. Prove to me that all elite schools do what you claim they do. If a school decides what gets a person into the school, then who are YOU to argue that some have more “talents” than others? </li>
</ul>

<p>“It doesn't matter what a college proclaims it does, it matters whether they are actually practicing race-blind admissions or not.”</p>

<p>-Prove that they are not. How do you know what a college does with admissions besides what it says it does? The fact is you don't. </p>

<p>“If a school has a admittance rate of 20% for non-URMs and 60% for URMs, sure you can argue that they aren't REALLY considering race, but it is far more likely that they are, and that it enough for me.”</p>

<p>-So, acceptance rates should be artificially equal for everyone? That doesn’t make any sense. Dare I say that URMs could be <em>gasp</em> seen as three times as qualified as non-URMS for a given year? </p>

<p>“There are plenty of other ways that one could find out definitively (moreso than just % admitted) about racial preferences, like (theoretically) an disgruntled employee, actual notes/marking that show a preference, whatever.”</p>

<p>-Oh yea, name these ways. Please do tell me how you know that a random private school uses racial preferences.</p>