Princeton and Affirmative Action..? Chances?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
141

<p>@ icfireball:</p>

<p>I'm getting worked up b/c your posts don't make much sense. Basically they amount to the following statement: "Well the moon has Sports Illustrated on its bedsheets."</p>

<p>I'll respond again anyway. </p>

<p>Height/Weight: They're not neutral. Princeton could choose to accept large amounts of tall and/or good-looking people. They could also attempt to counter this by accepting short, fat people. So you think it's so crazy that a university would engage in such admissions policies. In fact, in the early part of this century, HYP did just that (even requiring a picture with the application).</p>

<p>
[quote]
those are characteristics that are not selected for and therefore occur in more or less a random distribution

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes now it results in a random distribution, but commensurate with racial quotas, Princeton could institute an "ugly" quota. The physical characteristics of a college campus are important for dating purposes and Princeton should make sure that all attractiveness levels are present on campus (that exact argument is used for race based AA).</p>

<p>Drinking: </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is a matter of a college's identity and culture and in this case, the applicants choose the college, not vice versa.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is true. i agree. But I think it's imperative that Princeton, and other schools, understand that not just one type of social atmosphere is present in both our society and amongst the students at a given college. It's important that colleges admit students from all different partying backgrounds to ensure everyone can find a welcoming peer group on campus. (Again, almost identical argument for race based AA).</p>

<p>Politcal parties and religion: Your main point here is the observation that these aren't inherent. I don't see why that's important at all and honestly I've never in my life heard that argument. In fact it contradicts the whole notion of attempting to gather a diverse class with respect to qualities besides race (something all colleges like to do). Most hobbies, interests, and values are, by your definition, pliable. Thus, why should any college look at EC's? A college can't assume, again by your definition, that activities pursued in high school will continue in college. Really, why should a college even attempt to gather a class diverse with respect to academic goals (i.e. people who plan on having different majors). These are subject to change significantly by your estimation as well.</p>

<p>I really don't even understand how this is a viable counterpoint. Honestly I'm having trouble arguing against b/c it's just so odd.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Second, colleges already have a wide array of ideological beliefs so diversity isn't an issue here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're joking right? Most conservative college newspapers are protested against and many lose funding (it happens at my alma mater Cornell). Ivy League giving rate amongst professors is around 95% to the democratic party.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point that majority of American college students was just an observation that there is automatic lopsidedness in representation of political beliefs in terms of proportions of the population at colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK, so there should be affirmative action for conservatives/libertarians. There's an "automatic lopsidedness in representation" of whites/Asians due to culture/socioeconomic status and you propose we counteract this w/ race-based AA. I don't see the difference for conservative, especially considering both are purported to serve the same end (incorporasting varying perspectives). </p>

<p>Basically, every argument for AA can be applied to the above. In fact, the above guarantees a diverse campus while race-based AA guarantees there will be people with different skin colors (yea!!!). </p>

<p>Does anyone else agree that a quality being not inherent makes it unimportant in attempting to create a diverse class? (That's somewhat oddly worded. Basically, do you agree with me or icfireball?)</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
So if you are "flabergasted" and saying that it is "retarded", than all of those universities must clearly be missing something that you get.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Argument from authority. WHo cares? Elite colleges are almost entirely dominated by liberals and their commensurate ideology.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, all 25 of the top 25 colleges agree that those things have little benefit to a college environment

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You honestly believe that a college campus with basically one political opinion, one social opinion, one religious opinion, and physical homogenity constitutes a good environment for growth?</p>

<p>If so, then wow. And religiosity is almost never broached in an essay. In fact, it's almost a universal rule to avoid religious or political language in an essay. So colleges barely have an estimation of one's practices in these areas.</p>

<p>It's almost as if, you and icfireball, believe eating different cultures' foods, observing different cultures' apparel, listening to different cultures' music and diction is more important than learning about different political, religious, and social opinions and understanding different socioeconomic experiences.</p>

143

<p>
[quote]
You honestly believe that a college campus with basically one political opinion, one social opinion, one religious opinion, and physical homogenity constitutes a good environment for growth

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never argued that. I, in fact, went as far as to say that political and religious opinion were exceptions to the rule. I also believe that one of the greatest purposes of the essay is to look for a variety of "social opinions" and ways of thinking.</p>

<p>And I have yet to be "offended" by anything said. There is no need to be PC so long as you actually support your points.</p>

<p>^I disagree with the avoidance religiosity point, I know of one close friend who discussed muslim faith and was admitted to Stanford, as well as another who discussed reconciling Christianity with intellectualism and was admitted to another strong university. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Argument from authority. WHo cares? Elite colleges are almost entirely dominated by liberals and their commensurate ideology.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's fine. It doesn't make that ideology retarded.</p>

144

<p>To say African Americans will bring no diversity compared to other Asians of socioeconomic similarity is absolutely NOT true. It has a lot more to do with perspectives and life experiences being that particular race rather than being in the same neighborhoods and having the same income. The percentage of URMs are low compared to others that many of whom who have great apps aren't even in direct competition. No matter how you slice it most high ranking universities will have a Asian majority and a Native American, African American ,and Hispanic minority. I do agree they should be qualified but why do I need another 2400 SAT same stat kind of person ( any race) when I can add a little diversity with a 2200 and add something new to the table?</p>

145

<p>Politically there is No diversity within the Ivy League. I know being a conservative black female in an ivy could hurt me though</p>

146

<p>Abercrombieindy: Agreed.</p>

147

<p>Thank goodness there are other conservative blacks out there. I am already anticipating having to have those conversations where i am the only person defending my beliefs, which happens quite often in high school.</p>

<p>Really political ideology is NOT dependent on intelligence, why are there so many liberals at the top schools. </p>

<p>Perhaps I think it may be that conservatives tend to avoid Ivy League schools.</p>

148

<p>I identify myself with being more liberal than conservative though.</p>

149

<p>Ay, comments are so long, do you really think people have time to read all of this?</p>

<p>Be somewhat concise please.</p>

150

<p>dontno-</p>

<p>I don't want to minimize your post by responding quickly since you did at least put thought and effort into explaining yourself, but for the sake of brevity and clarity:</p>

<p>Yes, colleges could select any group of students they like based on any qualities (or at least private colleges can). But that's not to point. With affirmative action, colleges are selecting for underrepresented minority groups. The point is not to select black people as a preference, the point is to select black people to more closely match the percentage of black people in the population. I'm not commenting on the merits of this, but there is a fundamental difference between this and engineering your admissions based on desired criteria. Also keep in mind, it has nothing to do with being a minority, it has to do with being an underrepresented minority.</p>

151

<p>^I don't know where you're getting this whole lack of political diversity at top schools thing, but it is fundamentally false. </p>

<p>As far as political economic views, people fall over the spectrum, maybe even leaning economically conservative. But socially conservative? The fact is that much of social conservative ideology is not intellectually supported, so intellectuals are far less likely to be social conservatives.</p>

152

<p>
[quote]
The fact is that much of social conservative ideology is not intellectually supported, so intellectuals are far less likely to be social conservatives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like what exactly? Religious beliefs are obviously not intellectually supported. But there are secular, logical arguments for many conservative stances, including those regarding immigration, abortion, gay marriage, diversity/multiculturalism/affirmative action/other racial institutions, and others.</p>

<p>I'm not saying I agree with all of them (I don't), but at least I give their arguments some credence instead of dismissing them outright.</p>

<p>And honestly, I think you're probably still in high school. Let me tell, as an alum of an elite university (Cornell), I can assure that the Ivy league colleges, and other elite institutions, have a sparse amount of political diversity. This occurs b/c these colleges largely do not covet the diversity of ideas. (Your friends' essay constitute anecdotal evidence. Very very rarely are political points raised in an essay. And even if they are, the adcoms don't make a concerted effort to collect a variety of opinions. It's inconsistent of your argument to belittle the notion of underrepresented conservatives and not support the adcoms engaging in an affirmative action program for them. Yet support affirmative action for underrperesnted racial minorities. In both cases, according to you, these groups are not represented in the elite colleges as corresponding to their numbers in the general population (for race it's b/c of socioeconomics and culture, for conservatives, it's due to the lack of intellectualism (your opinion)). Thus you contradict yourself.)</p>

153

<p>icfirerball:</p>

<p>Once again everything you said applies to conservatives. Heere's your original quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
With affirmative action, colleges are selecting for underrepresented minority groups. The point is not to select black people as a preference, the point is to select black people to more closely match the percentage of black people in the population.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll change it to what I believe should happen:</p>

<p>
[quote]
With affirmative action <a href="my%20version">B</a>, colleges shouldselect for underrepresented minority **political groups. The point is not to select conservative people as a preference, the point is to select conservative people to more closely match the percentage of conservative people in the population <a href="which%20in%20America%20is%2050/50%20liberal/conservative">B</a>**.

[/quote]
</p>

154

<p>Donto:</p>

<p>NO!</p>

<p>You are missing the point entirely! Conservative political/ideological students are NOT underrepresented at elite universities.</p>

<p>Your fallacy:
"America is 50/50 liberal/conservative"</p>

<p>A. NO! Absolutely not true. Political identification shifts rapidly. That's why George Bush won in 2004 and John McCain lost be a huge margin in 2008.
B. This is not relevant. While the entire population of America may be closer to 50/50, the population of college-bound high-school seniors is far more liberal than conservative.
C. Your argument does not consider that there is a relationship between the characteristics of people that get into elite colleges and their political/ideological beliefs. Connecting race to intellectual performance or potential is racist because it implies that certain races are inherently superior to others. Race is not influenced by performance or potential whereas politics are. Do you understand this distinction?</p>

155

<p>Tyler09 said: "The fact is that much of social conservative ideology is not intellectually supported, so intellectuals are far less likely to be social conservatives."</p>

<p>I like how you try to say that there is diversity by giving a shine example of the closed mindness of liberalism.
Not intellectually supported and liberal ideas are? If anything both ideas are based on opinions of what matters, NOT intellectual notions. I believe that morality should always override syollogism-because my experience with debate (and some of the best in the entire country bc I'm from Texas) has shown me that two distinct lines of perfectly good rationale can lead to vastly different conclusions. Including using rational to justify mass genocide.</p>

<p>Sure something like mass suicide could be justified rationally and intellectually, but would it be moral?</p>

<p>@Dontno: Religious beliefs like the concept that there is a God can be logically supported, but belief in a specific religion is more of a personal belief. As a devout Christian I feel there is a need to make that distinction.</p>

156

<p>^The opinions by which most people distinguish themselves as liberal or conservative (gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, welfare, church and state, race and gender issues, ect.), you personally may support based on intellectual merit, but the overwhelming majority support it based off of a particular religion which, as you said, is just a personal belief. </p>

<p>As far as social political issues, liberal ideas are far more grounded in what is logical and methodically supported then what "feels" right. Not that one is necessarily better than the other, but people who are intellectually questioning tend to gravitate towards ideas they can support. This is the same reason why a far greater number of people on top college campuses are Agnostics or Atheists.</p>

<p>And I have never associated close-mindedness with liberalism, and I'm not particularly liberal.</p>

157

<p>Tyler09:And I have never associated close-mindedness with liberalism, and I'm not particularly liberal</p>

<p>I have bc it seems many liberals I have meet have been entirely dismissive of any merit in conservativism (or religion for that matter), so I have a negative view of liberalism as a whole. </p>

<p>I think the Agnostics/Atheists thing is more for ppl in the humanities. I have been involved alot with debate and science research and science competitions, and from what I have noticed is that science inclined ppl tend to be more religious, whereas Agnostics/Atheists seem to be more humanities based.</p>

<p>I personally think this is bc religion (like the laws of science) are well established and are a finite abstraction, resulting in a view of the universe that is ordered. A religious person is therefore more inclined to accept an ordered view of how the universe functions.
In contrast humanities ppl are more focused on abstraction or the concept that things have to be thought out without a single conception. So I think they are more inclined to not believe in religion as that would be a single finite view, which functions contrary to how they percieve the world (Satan is also involved in this doubt).</p>

<p>I found my ancedotal experiences to be quite parodoxical as many ppl would think that there is incompatiblity with science and religion i.e. evolution, but from all my experiences science inclined people (included myself) seem to be overwhelming more relligious. Which I suspect is why so Intelligent Design persists in our society (as many high school science teachers are probably religious). I personally do not feel that Intelligent Design is scientific bc it is not a testable hypothesis, but I believe that evolution is the mechanism by which God created us. Again I know this is a belief, but it is one that I am 100% sure of.</p>

158

<p>^I have had the opposite experience with science-inclined people. I've found them to be more agnostic then humanities people, which would make sense as following the scientific method, one would not believe in christianity. I am a christian but I understand how I can't logically prove my beliefs to anyone else, so I don't believe societal decisions should be made of of those beliefs.</p>

159

<p>@ DBate:</p>

<p>Can you really be taken seriously when you make comments like this:</p>

<p><a href="Satan%20is%20also%20involved%20in%20this%20doubt">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just wow. (For the record, I'm a secular conservative libertarian.)</p>

<p>I'm not going to delve into your points about science vs. religion. Merely I'll just respond to your contention that those in the sciences are more likely to be religious. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Here's a bunch of stats from a recent study:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists **generally, with **60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — **a mere 7% of respondents<a href="%22greater%22%20scientists%20were%20mebers%20of%20the%20NAS">/B</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Disbelief in God<a href="tantamount%20to%20atheism">/B</a> and immortality among NAS biological scientists was **65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's the link: POLL:</a> 93% of Scientists are Agnostic/Atheist - I-BMW.com</p>

<p>So clearly the two "belief" systems do not overlap. Sorry.</p>

<p>One more thing:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Religious beliefs like the concept that there is a God can be logically supported, but belief in a specific religion is more of a personal belief. As a devout Christian I feel there is a need to make that distinction.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. The belief in a "Creator" God can be supported (tho in my opinion not convincingly) through logical foundations. I took a Philosophy class last year and was utterly in awe of scholars like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others. They attempted to prove the existence of God independent of a religious creed. However, belief in a specific religion is entirely based on faith (i.e. one can't logically buttress the event of a man dying on a cross).</p>

160

<p>@ icfireball:</p>

<p>A: The margin swung about 2%. The split is ROUGHLY 50/50. The specific candidates (including that ignorant dolt Sarah Palin) can affect the 2-3 percentage point swing.</p>

<p>B: Once again, can be applied to both conservatives and URM's.</p>

<p>
[quote]
While the entire population of America may be closer to 14% black, the population of college-bound high-school seniors is far more white/Asian **than **black.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, affirmative action programs are intended to minimize the racial disparity. Both situations have a significant disparity amongst the applicant pool and AA programs attempt to lessen this.</p>

<p>C: Gibberish. You don't make a concise point here. I think what you're trying to say is that, in general, conservatives aren't as likely to be qualified for elite universities. Thus, it's acceptable to not admit them considering they're not as qualified (or don't have the appropriate amount of good applicants) as more liberal applicants.</p>

<p>Again, same exact thing can be said for racial applicants. Blacks aren't as likely to be qualified and AA programs use race and creating diversity to ignore this fact. </p>

<p>*DBate: * Since you're the only other conservatirve who's posted this page, what do you think?</p>

<p>Let me reiterate my point: I don't advocate colleges admit less qualified conservative applicants. i just think if they intend to create a diverse class, then conservative politics should be considered commensurate with racial make-up (as both are underrepresented).</p>