<p>^and one of those concerns (that colleges have) is that it can still significantly exclude racial minorities, because in terms of absolute numbers, there are more whites in poverty than blacks, for example. (Or at least, there were still as of a few years ago.) That's of course because of the greater Caucasian population. And while there are southeast Asians here in poverty, too, (a URM group) there are also newly immigrated East Asians living in relative poverty, compared to the less recently immigrated. (a non-URM group) So relying on SES factors could result in applications still heavily skewed toward whites & East Asians, with only slightly more of those from poverty than is true now. So while race and class do intersect, there are also separate reasons for considering each on its own in college admissions.</p>
<p>i did not say equality 0 and efficiency 100. but people need to realize that equality is not absolutely > than efficiency</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>I'd like to know how you obtained the 22% admit figure from the Princeton data. If possible, please include a detailed explanation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes you can in a country like America, that is a very terrible thing. A country cannot solely run on economic principles because economic theory has no emotion, it is not human.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree that it is a “very terrible thing” to pursue efficiency over “equality” in America. I place quotation marks around equality because I am not referring to the “all men are created equal” equality, of which I am a firm supporter. Instead, I am referring to the market distortion “equality” that occurs when one individual receives treatment X that another individual does not receive because the latter is of another color.</p>
<p>As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.”</p>
<p>I agree that “a country cannot solely run on economic principles,” but I disagree that the reason is lack of emotion. Many times, economic principles cannot be implemented. For example, it is almost universally recognized among economists that free trade is good because it allows countries to specialize in their comparative advantages and thus produce goods at the lowest opportunity cost. But, if you tout its benefits to Detroit, you’re liable to get your tires slashed. Special interests impede the implementation of economic principles. Oh, well, that is democracy. If the interests of the few are not in alignment with the interests of economists, then the idea cannot and should not be policy.</p>
<p>Let me just say, if you're going to disagree with AA, do it like fabrizio. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>First, thank you, kk19131.</p>
<p>Second, I meant "If the interests of the many are not in alignment with the interests of economists, then the idea cannot and should not be policy."</p>