<p>tetrishead:
My Spanish teacher/track coach is also Cuban and pale. He does have a Cuban last name, though. Anyways, since race is only considered, as in they ask you what your race is, and is not a major factor in admissions decisions, you will be fine.</p>
<p>amb3r:
Thanks for that. If it matters, I think that we pretty much agree about AA.</p>
<p>@Newjack88</p>
<p>I don't know, I just kind of feel like I hit the trifecta. Last name isn't Cuban, any Cuban features could be explained by my mother's side being part Greek and my father is deceased.</p>
<p>I didn't put it in the application to help my admissions as a URM (though if it does help I sure as hell wouldn't complain), I primarily did it for full disclosure and so I'd finally have something on the record confirming my "full" heritage. I guess if the time comes and someone asks they're just going to have to take my word for it, or I'm going to have to do some serious digging on my father to try and get a birth certificate from the Cuban government which, God knows, should be a piece of cake.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly when my daughter applied, Columbia asked for a picture of her with her application. As mentioned by other posts, you could be an African American without dark skin.</p>
<p>Many people have asked me if I'm Hispanic, since I my last name is Hispanic-sounding, and I have a-little-bit-darker-than-average skin skin and a "Hispanic build" (whatever that means?), but I'm Italian/Jewish. Someone in my school suggested that I put Hispanic on my college apps, but a) I don't speak Spanish, and b) I was under the impression that high schools have that stuff on record, too, and it's included somewhere on your school report or transcript. Besides, I'm a moral person. (And I'd be scared to death that the **** would the fan.)</p>
<p>This whole thread illustrates some of the thorny issues with affirmative action. I am for affirmative action. But I think it should be AFFIRMATIVE action. In that the adcoms should really go into the details of the person they are admitting. I mean look at the applicant's personal circumstances. Not just what box they checked on their application. Has this particular applicant on balance lived a disadvantaged life because of being a minority? True affirmative action would mean that the adcoms would try hard to recruit motivated smart black and hispanic kids from working class families from inner cities and rural communities. Not take the easy way out by enrolling affluent suburban URM kids with better stats than their truly disadvantaged counterparts.</p>
<p>My question is- why did this kid get into Columbia? Did anyone read the rest of the application at all? Did they make an effort to find out if he was truly disadvantaged by his URM status? If they had made any effort to truly make an AFFIRMATIVE action, they might have picked up on the fact that this student, regardless of racial/ethnic status, did not deserve special preferences. </p>
<p>Basically I feel that affirmative action is good. Discriminating purely on the basis of what box was checked on the application is not. It should not be just whether you had a drop of African blood in your ancestors. It should be whether that drop of blood disadvantages you so much today that you need special consideration in college admissions.</p>
<p>Somehow this is reminding me of a "Twilight Zone" episode where a guy becomes the things/people he hates ( BTW, I don't think anyone is "hating" here...thanks for that...)....does anybody remeber that one?</p>
<p>Turns out it was the movie which was an adaptation of an older episode with a quote from "The Merchant of Vanice"!!</p>
<p>A</a> Quality of Mercy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>@ vicariousparent
[quote]
True affirmative action would mean that the adcoms would try hard to recruit motivated smart black and hispanic kids from working class families from inner cities and rural communities.
[/quote]
First, AA is used to create racially diverse student bodies. Second, colleges can determine an applicant's class by looking at his or her zip code, and by looking at the applicant's school report. How they use the zip code is obvious. With the school report they check to see what kind of resources were available to the applicant: stuff like AP classes, number of classrooms vs students, and many other statistics. So basically do not worry, colleges are already taking those things into account.</p>
<p>Also, do not make the mistake that many people in America make. Simply because a minority obtains wealth does not mean that he or she will not be discriminated against. Those suburban URMs are at an advantage simply due to their ethnicity and negative stereotypes about them they must face. However, unlike the urban minorities, suburban minorities are provided with more opportunities and colleges expect them to use those opportunities. Hence, suburban minorities are expected to have better GPAs, ECs, test scores, etc...</p>
<p>One thing that should put this whole thing in perspective is that the first thing people can discern about each other is ethnicity. It's much harder to figure out someone's income/social class.</p>
<p>Things you should read:
Asian-Nation</a> : Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues :: Affirmative Action
Myths</a> and Fact about Affirmative Action</p>
<p>if AA was giving advantanges to urms because of the discrimination they face, why do Arab Americans not reap the benifits. AA in america right now is both unfair to URM´s and whites/ ORMs. If i was black and worked hard and got good grades I would not want ppl to think I only got into college because of my race. If i am a poor white or asain or arab kid who got rejected because a wealthy URM took my place i would also be upset.. </p>
<p>back to the post</p>
<p>Its wrong that the kid put down he was a URM but it is also wrong that the color of your skin makes such a large decision in college admissions that a kid would pretend to be another race. </p>
<p>I am all for economical AA but if your going to give some discriminated peoples AA and not others... that seems a bit unfair.</p>
<p>The moral of this rant is don´t fix the kids mistake.. fix the system.</p>
<p>I don't think that suburban URMs are expected to have higher GPAs and SATs. At least, I haven't seen any evidence of that.</p>
<p>And I agree that other racially discriminated groups (Arab Americans, definitely, and Jews, in certain areas of the country.)</p>
<p>I would also like to point out that there's a difference between BLACK and AFRICAN AMERICAN. I know some kids who are offended when someone calls them African American, because they consider themselves African or Jamaican or Jamaican American or whatever else they might be. </p>
<p>And also, I know in my school, for one, I don't really notice any discrimination towards the black or Hispanic students...</p>
<p>I'll post my usual FAQ about ethnic self-identification here. </p>
<p>Self-reporting ethnicity is OPTIONAL on the Common Application, which is what many colleges (for example Harvard) use as their main or sole application form. Self-reporting ethnicity is also optional on the Universal Application, which various colleges, including Harvard, also accept. Every college in the United States is required by federal law to track voluntarily self-reported ethnic data on students. The colleges ask for this information, and have to report it to the federal government, but students don't have to report it. Harvard's U-CAN page</p>
<p>U-CAN:</a> Harvard University :: Page 1 </p>
<p>shows, based on that federally mandated data tracking, that 15 percent of its students are "race unknown," so evidently quite a few applicants to Harvard decline to self-report their ethnicity and yet are still admitted. MIT still has its own application form, and asks its own brand of the ethnicity question. Ethnicity questions are optional on the MIT application also, but the application notes that MIT has an "Affirmative Action Plan" plan, with the comment that MIT "guarantees equal opportunity in education to students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds." About 10 percent of MIT's enrolled class is counted as "race unknown." </p>
<p>U-CAN:</a> Massachusetts Institute of Technology :: Page 1 </p>
<p>Columbia University has its own application form, which also makes clear that ethnic self-identification information is optional. Approximately 13 percent of enrolled students at Columbia are reported as "race unknown." </p>
<p>U-CAN:</a> Columbia University :: Page 1 </p>
<p>Don't worry about it. Self-report or not as you wish. Recognize that students from a variety of ethnic groups--including whatever one you would claim for yourself--are admitted to each of your favorite colleges each year. On the other hand, admission to some colleges (e.g., Harvard) is just plain competitive, so lots of outstanding students of each ethnic group you can imagine are not admitted each year. Do your best on your application, apply to a safety, and relax.</p>
<p>College admissions offices refer to the U.S. Census bureau definitions for ethnic categories, because they required to report by federal regulations, and you can look the definitions up on the Web.</p>
<p>
<p>Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.
</p>
<p>Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000 </p>
<p>It would be dishonest, and possibly grounds for revoking an offer of admission, to self-report according to a category that doesn't fit you at all. </p>
<p>Is that clear?</p>
<p>Ok guys we are straying way to far from the original discussion if you want to talk about AA there was a good thread in the Stanford forum...</p>
<p>Just to clear somethings up read below and please in the future make an effort to do some research about AA and to think about the subject critically:</p>
<p>cc1256:
1.) As I said colleges already consider someone's socio-economic background. They look at what you did with the opportunities presented to you. Wealthy kids are presented with more opportunities and thus they are expected to take advantage of those opportunities.</p>
<p>2.)
[quote]
If i am a poor white or asain or arab kid who got rejected because a wealthy URM took my place i would also be upset
[/quote]
First, if you are applying to colleges this year, you should know that there is no way to figure out who "took your spot." Second, it is more likely that a legacy or athlete "took your spot." And you know the funny thing about both of these groups is that they are overwhelmingly White! Third, as I said before, colleges look at what you did with your opportunities. If you were rejected as a poor White or Arab kid colleges are basically telling you they do not feel as though you did enough with the opportunties presented to you. If you want to look at a financially disadvantaged student taking advantage of his or her opportunities look at the thread in the Stanford forum about a kid getting in with a 1700.</p>
<p>3.)
[quote]
if AA was giving advantanges to urms because of the discrimination they face, why do Arab Americans not reap the benifits.
[/quote]
First, please read the articles that I provided in my last post. :) Second from what I have heard, aren't Arab-Americans just considered white? If that's the case then AA is virtually neutral to them. The group that I admit unfairly gets screwed over are poor Asians who are typically from poorer areas of Asia. Perhaps the solution to this is distinguish between Asians? Third, AA is used to promote racial diversity so if the group is "over-represented" they will no longer benefit from AA.</p>
<p>4.)
[quote]
If i was black and worked hard and got good grades I would not want ppl to think I only got into college because of my race.
[/quote]
I am sorry that you feel that way. Most URMs are secure enough about themselves to realize that people that think such things are prejudiced, or perhaps even racist.</p>
<p>la montagne:
1.) Suburban schools are typically wealthier than urban schools in most places in the US. Wealthier schools typically have things like AP classes, advanced science labs, good student:teacher ratios, etc. Thus students who go to these schools have more opportunities. Colleges expect these students to take advantage of these opportunities. Students at wealthier schools are expected to have taken AP classes, they are also expected to do better on standardized exams simply due to the assumption that because their school has more resources they ought to be better prepared.</p>
<p>2.)
[quote]
I would also like to point out that there's a difference between BLACK and AFRICAN AMERICAN. I know some kids who are offended when someone calls them African American, because they consider themselves African or Jamaican or Jamaican American or whatever else they might be.
[/quote]
I am not sure what your point is but yes that is true. Similarly many people of Asian decent prefer to be considered whatever they are not just "Asian." When in comes to college admissions general terms are used just to simplify the process. Part of this system is outdated. They need to distinguish between certain groups of Asians now.</p>
<p>3.)
[quote]
And also, I know in my school, for one, I don't really notice any discrimination towards the black or Hispanic students
[/quote]
I am glad for them. But I really hate when people say things like this. There really is not any point of this. I am pretty sure that a lot of guys think that girls never feel threatened or offended by slightly sexist remarks (like boys do better than girls in science, or it's okay to use the words b**** or p****) while in reality that is not be the case. Basically, all I am saying is that your school is not society, the effects of stereotypes are hard to detect, and you do not know these students well enough to comment on whether or not they have been discriminated against. And, anyways, the point of AA was originally to undo the effects of discrimination against minorities which had led them to be disadvantaged. Now it is primarily used to create racially diverse student bodies. If you do not think that a racially diverse student body is beneficial, then that is a whole different issue.</p>
<p>Reality:
One thing that people must realize is that not all ethnicities or genders start off on the same playing field. A lot of this has to do with history and how each group came to America. The reason why Asians and Arabs have done better in the US is because they were able to come here on their own and were given the opportunity to assimilate. Whereas Africans were brought to this country against their will as the inferior and who were never thought of being capable assimilation. Latinos also faced a similar past.</p>
<p>Also, if you have not noticed, the whole entire college admissions process is to the disadvantage of minorities. The whole ORM and URM hurt minorities and imply that there ought to be a certain amount of minorities attending colleges. Second, things like legacy status and athletic consideration disproportionally benefit Whites. Whites are present in good number in every single sport and whites are more likely than non-whites to have parents who went to college here in the United States.</p>
<p>I think that affluent, privileged URMs are unfairly given spots at the top tier schools that would otherwise go to truly disadvantaged low-income URMs. The schools love the system- they get a racially diverse but socio-economically homogeneous student body with a minimum of effort. But the system does not serve the best interests of the URMs- neither the affluent ones nor the economically disadvantaged ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that affluent, privileged URMs unfairly take spots at the top tier schools that would otherwise go to truly disadvantaged low-income URMs.
[/quote]
That just is not true. First of all why does the trade-off have to be a qualified wealthy URM for qualified low-income URM? This sort of thinking indicates that you believe that there can only/ought to be a certain amount of minorities attending colleges which indicates that you may believe that quotas are being used? If that's the case, I hope you know that quotas are illegal and are no longer used. This sort of thinking also suggests that you do not believe that a vast majority of wealthy URMs earn their positions at top universities. This statement also shows that you did not bother to read my earlier posts where I explained why "affluent, priveleged URMs" like other priveleged students are expected to take advantage of their opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The schools love the system- they get a racially diverse but socio-economically homogeneous student body with a minimum of effort.
[/quote]
I have no idea where you got this idea from but if colleges really wanted a socio-economically homogenous student body they would completely due a way with financial, give more weight to legacy status, and no longer make need-blind financial aid admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Why should a wealthy black person living in Bel-Air take the place over a poor white or asian struggling to survive? Just because one's skin color is different does not necessarily mean their experiences will be different.</p>
<p>What if you are really URM (hispanic) yet your whole name doesn't suggest it at all... in fact your name is distinctly asian or middle eastern (which would be the case if your father is not hispanic, but your mother is)... how can you know if the colleges really believe your claim and not think that you are lying? I wonder how multi-racial students are treated anyways.</p>
<p>I think the vast majority of wealthy URMs do earn their positions at top universities in the same way that the vast majority of wealthy non-URMs earn their positions. And why not? These wealthy URMs have lived as privileged a life as the wealthy non-URMs. </p>
<p>But as all of us know there is a vast excess of equally qualified wealthy privileged applicants and so colleges can be somewhat arbitrary in selecting from among this pool. This is the concept of the "hook" that is provided by legacy, URM status, etc. Everyone who gets in is equally qualified but the success rate is higher for legacies, URMs, etc. I have no problem with this system.</p>
<p>On the other hand I think it is naive to think that there is no unwritten "quota" in college admissions. If a college can enroll plenty of affluent URMs, it does not have to go beyond that pool. Colleges should be forced to look harder at their applicant pools to find those "diamond in the rough" URMs from underprivileged backgrounds and recruit them. But I don't think this happens as much as it should, because a college can simply point to its substantial (affluent) URM contingent and claim that there is enough racial diversity on campus. And that is too bad.</p>
<p>Celita:
Please refer to tokenadult's post. You are what you are regardless of the surname. In regards to multi-racial students they may check that more than one box or choose which ever ethnicity they identify with.</p>
<p>Milkmagn:
[quote]
Why should a wealthy black person living in Bel-Air take the place over a poor white or asian struggling to survive?
[/quote]
No one said this should happen, nor can any one prove an instance where this has happened. I actually think that in this case it should go to whoever is more qualified in terms of taking advantage of their opportunities which is what happens. The "wealthy black person living in Bel-Air" is and ought to be expected to have taken AP classes, have higher test scores, etc than the poorer individual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because one's skin color is different does not necessarily mean their experiences will be different.
[/quote]
Yes it does...? That is a very insensitive thing to say. If you have ever been a minority in a situation image how different that same situation would have been had you been in the majority. Take a class voting on what kind of soda they wanted for a party: If you were on the minority side that lost the vote, you would be sad. Whereas, if you were on the majority side, you would be content. Now, take skin color, imagine how different it would be to participate in a class discussion about Huck Finn if you African/African-American vs. Asian or White?</p>
<p>vicariousparent:
[quote]
On the other hand I think it is naive to think that there is no unwritten "quota" in college admissions.
[/quote]
Again colleges cannot use quotas. If they did why do the amounts of women vs men, Asians, Whites, Blacks, etc vary from year to year? The colleges use AA to achieve racial diversity. That means that certain amounts of each ethnicity should admitted to achieve this goal. Racial Diversity =/= quotas. Please, though I know the articles are long, read the articles that I attached in an earlier post. That should clear some things up for you so you do not keep on referencing AA myths.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I don't think this happens as much as it should, because a college can simply point to its substantial (affluent) URM contingent and claim that there is enough racial diversity on campus. And that is too bad.
[/quote]
I appreciate that you actually value racial diversity. :) I do agree that colleges should look harder to find these types of students (regardless of race). Usually, though, I think that colleges can find these students since they stand out by having good test scores despite going to a school with low average test scores, or through their essays and ECs as was the case with the Latino male who got into Stanford with a 1700. </p>
<p>Another reason you may feel this was is because, though they seem common, dramatic success stories are VERY rare. About 37% of African-American males apply to college and I would bet that a disproportionate amount of that 37% is made up of wealthy black males.</p>
<p>Interesting Story:
Number</a> of black men in college dwindle - Race & ethnicity - MSNBC.com</p>
<p>Newjack I did read those links you provided and I am still not convinced that the status quo is the best way to acheive the stated aims of affirmative action. I do think that "enrollment goals" are euphemisms for quotas. And the existence of quotas leads to the "capping" of enrollment at those levels.</p>
<p>Affirmative action has truly failed if it gets otherwise fully qualified individuals rejected from college...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Newjack I did read those links you provided and I am still not convinced that the status quo is the best way to acheive the stated aims of affirmative action. I do think that "enrollment goals" are euphemisms for quotas. And the existence of quotas leads to the "capping" of enrollment at those levels.
[/quote]
Ok, that's good. I think that we are in agreement in many ways. I do not think the status quo is the best system. However, I do think that the current system is better than the old system of "meritocracy" where the whole system was totally unfavorable to minorities and greatly favored Whites more so than it does now. I no longer think that AA is being used to undo discrimination but is now used to allow colleges to consider an applicant's race so that they may make a more racially diverse student body. I did some research and I do agree that there should be more socio-economic diversity at top institutions. Bottom line, our views are pretty similar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action has truly failed if it gets otherwise fully qualified individuals rejected from college...
[/quote]
AA is not the reason why so many qualified individuals get rejected from top institutions; it's because there are too many "fully qualified" individuals applying. No college has room for all the kids with good test scores and good GPAs. Plus, your statement seems to suggest that AA helps to admit unqualified students? My question though is, why would you think that a school like Harvard or Yale would admit someone they thought was unqualified and did not think was capable of graduating? What you will probably say in response to this is that some are more qualified than others, which would force us into a whole new debate about whether the SAT is legit whether GPAs and AP courses are really that important etc. which is even farther from the original topic.</p>