Princeton and Affirmative Action..? Chances?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
101

<p>Admission to Princeton is not a reward. You don't "get in" to Princeton so much as Princeton selects you to be part of the freshman class. </p>

<p>The school can pick its class however it wants, and it reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences of doing so. So far, Princeton has sought ethnic and cultural diversity in its classes and it has clearly done pretty well for itself. The fact that you guys are all hear arguing on a forum about Princeton like it's your life goal proves that. </p>

<p>As long as Princeton isn't actively targeting to limit the enrollment of any group (which they use to do against jews and have been accused of doing against asians) than they aren't doing anything wrong. </p>

<p>If you want to argue about something, argue about what society needs to do to make it so that under represented minorities are not under represented. Do something useful.</p>

102

<p>Does anyone know if adcoms look at URM's differently (hopefully they do)? That is, when you think about it/look up stats, there are A LOT less American Indians in the US than African Americans. There are around 12% African Americans while a low 0.68% Native Americans. Does this factor into admissions decisions? I am indeed Native American, but please don't label me as someone obsessed with affirmative action/trying to overplay the fact so I can get into college, I am SIMPLY curious and would appreciate input. Wado!!</p>

103

<p>I would also like to mention, for full disclosure, that I did not apply to Princeton.</p>

104

<p>Tyler09 is pretty dumb.</p>

<p>Way to generalize. GOSH.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
As long as Princeton isn't actively targeting to limit the enrollment of any group (which they use to do against jews and have been accused of doing against asians) than they aren't doing anything wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Our laws and constitution forbid against active discrimination: you are forgetting, however, that they also forbid against race-based favoritism.</p>

106

<p>@Tyler09:</p>

<p>By far the dumbest post in this thread. ''As long as Princeton isn't actively targeting to limit the enrollment of any group'' just about sums up the pure idiocy of your post. Either learn to read, or don't try to chastise us for having an intelligent debate. Do you have any clue whatsoever as to what we were debating about? Affirmative Action IS limiting the enrollment of Asian students. Did you not bother to read where I said that without Affirmative Action, the enrollment of Asian students would rise to 40% of the campus population? </p>

<p>I love how you act condescending, but first make some completely idiotic statement, and even spell here as ''hear''. Srsly, lrn2spel&reed.</p>

107

<p>Tyler09 is completely right. I severly doubt that Princeton officials are conspiring to keep Asians out, which is what I think he is saying. Princeton is seeking diversity and since Asians are over represented few of them are going to get in bc otherwise there would not be as much diversity. Asians are limited as a unwanted consequence of what Princeton considers a greater goal of diversity, but that does not mean that they are against Asians. Moreover I would wager that several of the adcom are Asian (at least my regional Yale admission officier is, so it is likely just as true for Princeton) so why would Asians be biased against other Asians.</p>

108

<p>Saugus, I'm not going to attack you. I'm just going to tell you. And you, along with anybody else who reads the thread can take what I say or leave it. I only ask that you attribute me the same respect. </p>

<p>Affirmative action is not what limits enrollments to asian campuses. When affirmative action was eliminated on UC campuses and black enrollments at Cal and UCLA were cut in half (a net loss of about about 3% at both campuses) while Asian enrollments at those campuses increased significantly, while those of other groups remained the same, did not reveal that affirmative action disadvantaged asian students. It revealed that those campuses were using race to limit the enrollment of asian students. </p>

<p>All affirmative action is, is targeting underrepresented minority groups (whether it be african americans, mexicans, girls (now boys), filipinos, or anything) and seeking them out when building a class. If a school is seeking to limit the enrollment of any group that is NOT affirmative action and is highly ILLEGAL. </p>

<p>In case I still haven't been clear, I'll use an analogy (which i hate doing). If I throw a party, and with no effort say, 20 boys and 15 girls will show up. If I was practicing affirmative action I would start recruiting and pursuing and inviting more girls to come in order to throw a better party (for obvious reasons). </p>

<p>In this situation, it would be illegal (or not cool) if I instead called up boys and uninvited them. </p>

<p>The point in my post is that their is a big difference between affirmative action, which is targeting underrepresented groups to fulfill and institutional missions, and is legal. And "negative action" which is targeting an overrepresented (or any other groups) and seeking to limit or cap their enrollment. </p>

<p>And I was not chastising anybody, so if you felt chastised then maybe you are starting to understand my point.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
why would Asians be biased against other Asians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because there are so many statistically strong Asian applicants and so few seats at coveted schools like Princeton, that they have to step all over one another to get ahead in life.</p>

<p>
[quote]
that does not mean that they are against Asians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but they are for blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
you are forgetting, however, that they also forbid against race-based favoritis

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you, for making a point instead of simply asserting that I am "dumb" (which I assure you, I am not). </p>

<p>But I challenge you, what qualifies this a favoritis? Because it is not law that Princeton is a better college than WhereverCC, it has no mandate to maintain any particular sets of "standards". It may construct its freshman class however it wants, as long as it is based on a larger "mission" as opposed to being totally arbitrary. And they do so all of the time. If one of the readers reads your essay and for whatever reason they like you, then you are far more likely to get admitted. Inherently, any holistic admission system is going to be biased against people from backgrounds not like the admissions committee, as such there is no such thing as "meritorious" non-formulaic admissions. </p>

<p>And don't even get me started on the whole debate as to what is "merit". </p>

<p>But to go full circle, in what realm of imagination does somebody "merit" to go to Princeton or even have more "merit" than any other individual. If Princeton deems you a qualified and vital member of the class, then, and only then, are you "meritorious" of being there (ie they admit you). </p>

<p>Princeton and 24 of the top 25 universities (all except Caltech, the UCs and Umich are forced to be race-blind, but still practice AA anyway) believe diversity to be an incredibly important aspect of the freshman class they seek to admit. I, based on personal experience and that of others, strongly agree with those 24 top universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, but they are for blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes and no. If those groups were not underrepresented on campus, then they would not be "for" those groups. Similarly, if Asians were underrepresented they may be "for asians" (as they are at some southern campuses). But at the same time, Princeton is not "for" any type of individual. They are "for" diversity in their freshman class. It fundamentally is not about any individual student, which is why applicants shouldn't take rejection personally.</p>

111

<p>Idk. Tyler you sound pretty dumb to me.</p>

112

<p>^Ad hominem is not fair. Want to discuss or debate your views? Don't attack the man; attack his words. At least have some respect on the playing field.</p>

113

<p>That's fine. Looking at your post history, MYSOJ, your tendency to voice unsupported observations does not discriminate, so I don't take any of it personally. </p>

<p>Do you have anything to address or refute any of the points I laid out? I invested a good amount of time in my argument, I would hope that you would want to engage in the debate, instead of just providing commentary.</p>

114

<p>I don't know: personally, I find MYSOJ1230's commentary extremely amusing and relevant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because it is not law that Princeton is a better college than WhereverCC, it has no mandate to maintain any particular sets of "standards"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Although Princeton is a private university, it is an institution that receives federal funding. It is thus subject to federal laws that prohibit both racial discrimination and racial preference.</p>

<p>Favoritism implies a partiality toward a certain group of people.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If those groups were not underrepresented on campus, then they would not be "for" those groups. Similarly, if Asians were underrepresented they may be "for asians"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If Asians were underrepresented, I would not want them to be for Asians. My point is that there should be no race-based preferential treatment. </p>

<p>If "diversity" is an ideal that involves artificially creating a working environment of people from different racial backgrounds, and if meeting that goal involves giving preferential treatment to those backgrounds OVER other "overrepresented" ones, racism is still being perpetuated, and a wrong is still being committed.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether it is favoritism for the group itself or for a member of that group, race-based admissions goals deny human dignity and equality: they are moral evils.</p>

<p>Would you like to know why these universities stand under the banner of an unrealistic and morally bankrupt ideal? Otherwise, they would experience a ****storm of frivolous and costly litigation, accused of being racist by jokers like Al Sharpton. The risk of being fair is one with consequences too dire to imagine.</p>

<p>Of course "merit" shouldn't be restricted to numbers, which are more closely related to socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. It pays attention to the overcoming of life obstacles and the triumphing over adverse circumstances.</p>

<p>If anything, the mission of the elite colleges should be to capture this higher of ideal, of creating true diversity by acknowledging the merit of those extraordinarily talented indigent students who have worked hard their entire lives and who have passed tests more honorable and challenging than the SATs.</p>

<p>A genuinely holistic and just admissions system would be one that does not pay attention to the color of a human being's skin.</p>

115

<p>"Of course "merit" shouldn't be restricted to numbers, which are more closely related to socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. It pays attention to the overcoming of life obstacles and the triumphing over adverse circumstances.</p>

<p>If anything, the mission of the elite colleges should be to capture this higher of ideal, of creating true diversity by acknowledging the merit of those extraordinarily talented indigent students who have worked hard their entire lives and who have passed tests more honorable and challenging than the SATs.</p>

<p>A genuinely holistic and just admissions system would be one that does not pay attention to the color of a human being's skin."</p>

<p>I couldnt agree more</p>

116

<p>^I disagree with your assessment that affirmative action is a moral evil. That is all a matter of perception as to whether or not you value the type of environment Princeton seeks to create.</p>

<p>I also think you are mistaken as to whether affirmative action is racism. Racism implies holding a particular group as more or less favorable because they belong to a certain race. On the surface level, it would appear that yes, affirmative action is "racism". However, as I mentioned in my previous post, if african americans or hispanics or native americans weren't underrepresented on college campuses, then they wouldn't be more "favorable" for admissions. </p>

<p>In other words, it is not the group of the individual that is favorable, but the overall representation in the class that is favorable. A subtle distinction to many, but nonetheless disqualifies the situation as racism because if Princeton for whatever reason could only admit one student, it wouldn't find any particular ethnic group to be more or less inherently desirable. </p>

<p>In order to understand my point you have to view it from the prospective of the university, which is building a class more than admitting individuals. </p>

<p>And be careful with your assertion of "federal laws". Constitutional law gives the supreme court the right to interpret the laws. Currently the supreme court has interpreted that affirmative action is legal (as pursuing diversity as part of a broader mission is legal). So federal law currently protects affirmative action.</p>

<p>And regardless of receiving federal funds, private universities do not have a mandate to admit any particular type of student. The UCs, for example, do have a mandate to educate the top 4% of California students based on relatively standard criterion. </p>

<p>To me, a genuinely holistic and just admission system would be one that seeks to build together the best class environment based on a mission. Students would then search for a college with a mission that best fits their values.</p>

117

<p>^ Affirmative Action is NOT racism, but it IS discrimination. In fact, the Oxford American Dictionary it defines parenthetically as "positive discrimination." And yes there are some positives to the type of discrimination that's resultant from Affirmative Action. But in the end, positive discrimination for one group is negative discrimination against another.</p>

118

<p>Most of you make this way too complicated, focusing on labels and definitions.</p>

<p>Most private schools just want to assemble diverse classes. Race is one of the many factors.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
Most private schools just want to assemble diverse classes. Race is one of the many factors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yea definitely. So in addition to race, they also ask these specific questions (b/c this data won't be readily available on all applications): how religious one is, height, weight, attractiveness, political party, how heavy one drinks, how many times a week does one go out socially, where does one stand on abortion/gay marriage/affirmative action/welfare/immigration, or any number of other questions.</p>

<p>Does Princeton make sure to get a diverse class with respect to these? </p>

<p>Let me guess here, probably not considering Ivy League government departments had a 95% giving rate to the democratic party. So much for diversity of opinion (the only real diversity), right?</p>

<p>Let's be honest. They don't want REAL diversity. They want nice numbers to put on their brochure. The liberal administration wants to pat itself on the back for being so morally superior.</p>

120

<p>Native American.</p>