<p>It’s dishonest. Immoral. Wrong. Could get your acceptance rescinded and all other colleges you apply to put on red alert. </p>
<p>But not illegal.</p>
<p>“Help!” </p>
<p>You don’t want help. You want justification. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14635820-post10.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14635820-post10.html</a></p>
<p>I hope every college you apply to calls your guidance counselor and he/she tells them the fraud you’re looking to commit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He shouldn’t do it because he is not following the directions on the application. But your outrage is misplaced to me. You are getting mad at someone for wanting to play "[rule</a> fu](<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyRuleFuIsStrongerThanYours]rule">http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyRuleFuIsStrongerThanYours)." He never would’ve asked the question had there been no racial preferences.</p>
<p>So how would colleges see someone who is a URM on mom’s side but an ORM on dad’s side. In other words, would a half Black/half Asian student be at an advantage or a disadvantage. </p>
<p>How would being a first generation college student or poor influence that decision? I feel like there are a lot of Asians whose chances are diminished because of their ethnicity who have parents that didn’t go to college. Thus, why Asians are often time pushed so hard to get an education. So would there be no influence?</p>
<p>Interesting read, thanks.</p>
<p>Re: #224</p>
<p>It depends on the college.</p>
<p>BoomBox,I think your question helps to illustrate how much subjectivity goes in to the process despite supposed guidelines in place. I dont know if you would be doing something immoral or just gaming the system but I suspect if you were to do so, you would not have been the first.</p>
<p>Morality has nothing to do with it. The rules attached to “the race box” indicate what “African American” means, and Egyptians are not “African American.” Thus, for that reason and that reason only, he should not check “African American.”</p>
<p>Curious how being biracial affects college admissions if you check both boxes. For example, if you are half-black and half-white and you checked two boxes for it on your application. Would such an individual qualify for affirmative action or some of the benefits of it?</p>
<p>This is a strictly hypothetical question, I am not biracial.</p>
<p>I’d check full black so as to not complicate matters.</p>
<p>On another online discussion forum, I saw a link to this newly published, LONG article that I am still reading, </p>
<p>[The</a> Myth of American Meritocracy | The American Conservative](<a href=“http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/]The”>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/) </p>
<p>which has data on several of the issues we discuss here in this thread.</p>
<p>None of it is new, though, and all of the statements are biased.</p>
<p>Philovitist,</p>
<p>Admittedly Unz has an ax to grind as the proponent behind prop 227 sharply limiting bilingual education, but are the statistics wrong? </p>
<p>What surprises me as much as the percentage of Jewish students at Harvard vs a vie other Caucasians (Harvard has lots of Jewish alums and so they get a legacy bump, high concentration in the NE, etc) and Asians is the lack of any movement between classes in the racial make-up, which you would expect to see if Harvard was really holistic as opposed to using soft/de facto quotas. </p>
<p>In addition to the 25% of the class being Jewiwsh and 25% being non-Jewish Caucasian since around 1993, as I have posted elsewhere, based on 10 years of Harvard admissions data, the number of AA has been in a tight band between 11 - 12%, Hispanics about 9-11%, and Asians between 16 and 20%. </p>
<p>I worry that the Supreme Court (or at least five of the Justices, including the swing vote Kennedy) are already skeptical of AA and may be looking for data supporting the view that holistic is really a ruse for hiding soft quotas at the very tippy top schools like Harvard. In Grutter, the Supreme Court spent a fair amount of time writing about Harvard and I suspect (rightly or wrongly) they probably view Harvard as a bell weather for what other top schools are doing.</p>
<p>Oh, but the existence of soft quotas is a known fact. JBHE even quotez Harvard promising to limit its black admits to 200 kids so that other universities might have strong black applicants as well.</p>
<p>Harvard can mold its class however it wants, for whatever reasons it seems fine.</p>
<p>[The</a> Brown Daily Herald: Poll: Most students opposed to use of race in admissions](<a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/poll-most-students-opposed-to-use-of-race-in-admissions-1.2798318#.ULhQ2KWUr-k]The”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/poll-most-students-opposed-to-use-of-race-in-admissions-1.2798318#.ULhQ2KWUr-k):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Universities should put more effort into explaining the reasoning behind their policies to their students and the public at large. :/</p>
<p>I would just like to bring attention to a very wise statement on this thread. From page 7:</p>
<p>“What is the ideology of Dutch people(work, learn, study) and the ideology of Syrian people(only war , ak-47, suicide bomb, Allah akhbar).”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To the extent that this really is a “known fact,” it’s sad that it continues, seeing as how Bakke outlawed quotas and Grutter reaffirmed that holding in Bakke. I paraphrase Justice Scalia’s skeptical remark during the oral arguments of Grutter: a number is a quota but a range is not.</p>
<p>They’re sculpting a class. In that class they want somewhere around this number of that sort of kid. </p>
<p>It’s not really sad since nothing actually bad comes of it. Legality isn’t synonymous with goodness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it important that we have “somewhere around this number” of students with a certain range of melanin in their skin?</p>