Posing as a URM

Applying to College
121

<p>
[quote]
You say that there are remnants of segregation that still exist. Examples, please?

[/quote]

It's a question of thought influencing unmeasurable variables, not policy. Segregation will largely die out with the oldest of the baby-boomers, but segregation is still fairly recent. To assume that private universities which were largely immune from forced segregation for several years and who do not have the same oversight as public universities wouldn't have some vestiges of 'previous' thought is pretty much ridiculous.</p>

<p>Individual examples aren't something I'm going to provide you with, and it's not because I'm speaking in hyperbole. It's because it's an obvious statement. The prejudices of prior generations influence the pantheon of leadership because leaders are primarily those who experienced the times. I don't have a problem with the bulk of your arguments, I have a problem with the assumption that it's time to get rid of AA today. It's a question of time. Only when the generations whose first-hand experiences shaped those times die off can we consider discussing the issue about whether or not it's buried for good, and subsequently whether or not there's been enough of a normalization in opportunity and quality (or lack thereof) between races would decide whether or not AA needs to go.</p>

<p>An average student who attends an elite private primary school, who receives tutoring, who partakes in academic activities outside of school, who receives test preparation and who grows up in a generally supportive family will score moderately well on the SAT. An average student who attends a porous primary school, who receives no tutoring, who partakes in no academic activities outside of school, who receives no test preparation and who grows up in a generally difficult home that dissuades passive learning will perform moderately poorly on the SAT. On average, it's more likely the first student will be white, and it's more likely the second student will be black. You have to normalize test samples and recognize that a student in the second situation scoring a 1900 is roughly equivalent to a student in the first situation scoring a 2200.</p>

<p>That's where considerations should come into play, and if it takes a somewhat misguided affirmative action policy to force the latter student into school then it's worth it. A better metric would be the average test scores of the top 10% of graduates at any specific high school (assuming a large enough sample size, of course) resulting in the tiering of said high school, as it's likely students at one high school have similar socioeconomic and familial experiences. Likely, of course, and not constant, but probably more reliable today than making the affirmative action race-based. That's a hell of a lot more difficult to do, though, and AA was initially enacted to deal with race anyway so I'm not really sure what you'd expect.

[quote]
De facto segregation is a made up problem by people who think that making everything "proportional" is different from setting quotas.

[/quote]

Proportionality is obviously misguided (as, yes, it's essentially setting quotas). But when you take proportionality out of the equation, and sizes of population of races are normalized, you're left with the fact that blacks and Hispanics lag behind in the quantitative measurements of an application. We are a large country, we are never going to have a truly standardized primary educational system. As a result, it's the burden of higher institutions of education to provide education to those who on average are quantitatively less qualified if the average is based on well-defined swaths (socioeconomic, racial).</p>

<p>There's a reason core curricula exists, and it's not to take some great journey through the classics like most of the elite schools would want you to believe. It's to normalize the incoming class, because their primary educations can vary wildly in quality. It's one of the reasons we don't have an undergraduate law degree in this country (well, that and the bar associations won't allow it). With the exception of engineering focused schools the bulk of undergraduate institutions are not geared towards creating specialists, but rather reformation and then basic introduction to specialization.

[quote]
In the context of public education, racial imbalance does not indicate segregation, please see the opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas for further clarification as well as the original text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[/quote]

You're pushing in a direction that's a waste of time for both of us. I know what you're doing, and you know I'm arguing theory. We both know the opinions of individuals are not canon.

[quote]
I support affirmative action in its original intent. As specified by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, it was an idea that people should be treated WITHOUT REGARD to their race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. That made perfect sense, given our nation's history of treating people differently based on said factors.

[/quote]

The specifications of presidents are irrelevant. The words of presidents do not erase the past, and they rarely change the present.

[quote]
Did affirmative action "hurt" me? No. I was accepted to all the schools on my list. Do I need to be "hurt" by affirmative action in order to oppose it? No, I oppose it because I believe that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

[/quote]

There is discrimination at birth. Primary education is not equal, and that inequality has the highest statistical correlations to race. Until there's a day when the highest statistical normalized correlation is not race. affirmative action, in some form, must exist.</p>

122

<p>"There is discrimination at birth. Primary education is not equal, and that inequality has the highest statistical correlations to race. Until there's a day when the highest statistical normalized correlation is not race. affirmative action, in some form, must exist."</p>

<p>i fully agree with that and end my argument there.</p>

123

<p>Let's say HYP admit approximately 15% URM (IMO only because the Federal Government dangles a carrot in from of them) and that translates into lets say 450 students. Doesn't it follow that URMs will be competing for one of those spots, thus not affecting the rest of the application pool? I also think that if it wasn't for the Federal Financial Carrot they would need to admit less people, thus the 450 spots might not exist.</p>

<p>In any case posing as a URM ain't kosher.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
Finally people keep bringing up the point that "blacks cannot discriminate or be racist because they don't have power". That is BS. Blacks do have considerable power and influence in today's world. So do Hispanics. As they should. This is not the 1950's. Lets not pretend that it is, because that belittles all the acheivements of the last 50 years. Heck, we even have an African American presidential candidate whose qualification for the job is only being questioned on the basis of youth and inexperience. Nobody questions his abilities based on his race. Nobody.

[/quote]

You are incorrect here. How many African-Americans are there in high government positions? How many Asians are there in high government positions? How many minorities in general are there in high government positions? Not many. How many Whites are there in high government positions? A lot. The same applies when looking at those who have significant financial power.</p>

<p>If minorities held prejudiced views about Whites they could not affect the lives of Whites significantly. Yes, they could make whites uncomfortable but they could not actually hinder the lives of Whites. Whites, however, can act on their prejudiced views and directly hinder the lives of minorities if they choose to.</p>

<p>Would the Jews have been persecuted during the Holocaust if they had had power? No. Would the Japanese have been sent to internment camps during World War II if they had had power? Would blacks have been actively prevented from getting loans to buy homes or prevented to buy homes in certain residential areas if they had had power? No. </p>

<p>I can go on and on about how injustices happen to those who do not have power but I think you get the point.</p>

<p>P.S. All of the examples I provided are examples of how one group with prejudice against another used their power to harm the group they were prejudiced against.</p>

<p>EDIT:
Also, I will say this again. Schools already take into account what opportunities were provided to you thus they take into account socio-economic factors already. Wealthier kids typically have access to AP classes, SAT tutors, parents who went to college, etc., so they are expected to have taken advantage of these opportunities and have better test scores. Likewise, poorer kids typically do not have access to these opportunites and colleges do not hold this against them. An example of this is how colleges emphasize that not taking AP classes will not be held against applicants who went to schools where AP classes were offered while it is held against students who went to schools where there were AP classes offered.</p>

<p>I think this way is fair since simply looking at how much money a family makes will not really tell the colleges anything. It's about how the family chooses to spend their money. For example, take two middle class families making $50,000 dollars a year. Say that one family chooses to send their kid to a so-so inner city public school, while the other values education and pays $10,000 a year for their kid to attend a good local private school. If colleges only considered the applicant's socio-economic background, both students would be expected to have achieved the same despite the fact that one went to a better school with more opportunities while the other went to a so-so school with fewer opportunities.</p>

<p>In my opinion, it makes more sense just to look at the opportunities provided to each student which is what colleges are already doing.</p>

125

<p>To quote from a Harvard Crimson article [Study says richer universities receive more Federal aid--11/17/03]: </p>

<p>“Because we have a need-blind admission policy, whether a student comes from a higher or lower income family does not matter,” Donahue said. “Students coming from low-income backgrounds often don’t apply to schools like Harvard. It’s a complicated social phenomenon. We would love to have more students from low-income families; there are only so many spots.”</p>

<p>Substitute URM for low-income families.</p>

126

<p>
[quote]
Schools already take into account what opportunities were provided to you thus they take into account socio-economic factors already.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The existing evidence is against this statement. In the book </p>

<p>America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg </p>

<p>Amazon.com:</a> America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education: Books: Richard D. Kahlenberg </p>

<p>there is an article that examines data from federal longitudinal data sets and finds that low-income background is not a boost factor at all in the overall practice of college admission in the United States. See </p>

<p>BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor </p>

<p>by a former economic adviser to President Clinton for more about this.</p>

127

<p>"In my opinion, it makes more sense just to look at the opportunities provided to each student which is what colleges are already doing."</p>

<p>The issue at hand isn't so much the process itself. I don't think anyone here will disagree with the holistic process as a generally well-intentioned admissions track that admits the best applicants for what they are worth as people, not just as students. The issue is the inclusion of race into that holistic process. How does race change the opportunities provided to the student, that class-based AA doesn't account for? Does an African-American applicant automatically have a harder life than a Caucasian applicant?</p>

128

<p>what it comes down to is that if Harvard or Columbia or UChicago want to accept all low income black kids from south central Los Angeles, then they have the right to because they are PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES. There is no point in arguing this because it is not our choice nor our right to do so.</p>

129

<p>You should talk to your friend about his poor decision.</p>

130

<p>Private schools are not allowed to be completely segregated under federal law. Supreme Court ruled on this in 1976 (Runyon v. McCrary). As long as these universities are on American soil, they will follow the Constitution and all federal laws (in the case of ALL school segregation, Title 42, U.S.C. 1981)</p>

131

<p>dear god it was an example</p>

132

<p>tokenadult:
What I said was that colleges take into account whether or not the applicant took advantage of his or her opportunities. None of those articles that you provided refute this. The point of taking these things into consideration is not to give any group preferential treatment but to establish a uniform starting line. For example, if colleges did not take into account the opportunities that were available to applicants, then kids who went to schools where no AP classes were offered would be inherently disadvantaged. Your articles mainly talked about how socio-economically disadvantaged students are reluctant to apply to top schools due to financial concerns and lack of information.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How does race change the opportunities provided to the student, that class-based AA doesn't account for? Does an African-American applicant automatically have a harder life than a Caucasian applicant?

[/quote]

I hope that everyone realizes that AA was at first used help the economically disadvantaged who were disproportionally minorities and is now simply used to allow colleges to consider race to achieve racial diversity since racial diversity does not naturally happen. However, many would argue that certain stereotypes against specific groups hinders their education.</p>

133

<p>"dear god it was an example"</p>

<p>I didn't want people to think it was true. It IS our right to argue this, after all-and private universities are not above the law.</p>

134

<p>It is an absolute fallacy to assume that URM who are financially well off are not discriminated against. First of all, people are always SURPRISED that an URM can be financially well off in the first place (unless they're athletes or entertainers), can come from elite high schools and colleges (without being in a special program), etc. My daughter who fits into this category says that most white people (and others) and others are always shocked that she's not in a "special program" and she's never had financial aid a day in her life from pre-k through college (since all of the schools she's attended give needs based aid). When she was small, people commented to me constantly about how "articulate" she was (as if Blacks can't put a subject and verb together accurately). I was just in first class and the white man next to me had the gall to ask me how it was that I was in first class. He actually said, "do you work for the airlines". There is an ingrain notion that remains in a large part of society that Black means poor, low-achieving and undeserving. There is actually a HUGE Black middle-class that somehow most people aren't aware of. We exist.</p>

135

<p>Then, why is it that UC and CSU are racially diverse even though public universities in California are forbidden from using racial preferences? </p>

<p>I don't think Black people in California think the UC's are "diverse". I know I don't.</p>

136

<p>
[quote]
On average, it's more likely the first student will be white, and it's more likely the second student will be black. You have to normalize test samples and recognize that a student in the second situation scoring a 1900 is roughly equivalent to a student in the first situation scoring a 2200.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Data from 1995 show that black students from families earning more than $70,000 in 1995 dollars scored lower on average than white students from families earning less than $10,000 in 1995 dollars (850 vs. 870). For reference, the first income figure is equivalent to over $96,500, and the second is equivalent to under $14,000 in today’s dollars.</p>

<p>So, no, maybe we don’t have to “normalize” test samples and conclude that due to race, an equivalent of a 300-point boost is needed for adjustment purposes. (Empirical data from Espenshade and Chung show that being black is worth the equivalent of 240 extra SAT points. This data has not been refuted in any way, shape, or form by William Kidder.)</p>

<p>Even so, I doubt a student with a 1900 SAT score needs to be “forced” into school. Assuming that he had good high school grades, could respond to an essay prompt, and was involved with organizations he liked, I’m pretty sure that he’d be able to enter many schools of his own merit.</p>

<p>The specifications of presidents are not irrelevant. The Executive Orders of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson created the term “affirmative action” and defined it. Unfortunately, the meaning has changed significantly since then. That’s why international countries refer to our “affirmative action” as “positive discrimination.”</p>

137

<p>
[quote]

I don't think Black people in California think the UC's are "diverse". I know I don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I’m sure that they aren’t “diverse.” “Diversity” is a euphemism for proportional representation. UCs certainly do not exhibit this characteristic.</p>

<p>Now, diversity, on the other hand, simply means variation. And, variation clearly exists at the UCs. Is there only one race present at UC and CSU campuses? Last time I checked, all races were present.</p>

138

<p>"Empirical data from Espenshade and Chung show that being black is worth the equivalent of 240 extra SAT points. "</p>

<p>Isn't that data more than 10 years old?</p>

139

<p>"Diversity" (in quotes) to me, means underrepresented groups. In California, I think that means Black people.I guess I'm saying I'd spend some private tuition money to see a few more Black students and faculty on campus. FWIW, my daughter doesn't seem to care, bless her. I don't think she knows any different. Yet. It is always startling for her to meet "people like her".</p>

<p>Okay. I'll be superficial and blunt. There is still "discrimination" within the Black women's dating scene.</p>

140

<p>
[quote]
There is actually a HUGE Black middle-class that somehow most people aren't aware of.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am fortunate to live in an integrated, middle-class community, so I am aware of that. I agree with you that many people living in the United States, even rather widely traveled people, are not aware of that. The airline pilot whom I happen to know best, who happens to be black, lives in a rather more upscale neighborhood across town. I enjoy visits to his home. </p>

<p>Something I read in the newspaper once--I'm sorry I haven't got a source citation--was to the effect that there are 1 million black families in the United States with incomes of $100,000 per year or greater. (Yeah, I know, $100,000 per year goes farther in some states than in others, but that is well above the United States median household income.) So it is possible to have ethnic diversity on a college campus with rather little socioeconomic diversity. I would like to have all kinds of diversity on a college campus, and I would like my children to seek colleges that are academically selective--I can already count on them to seek colleges as ethnically diverse as the neighborhood they are growing up in. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>