<p>sosomenza, you have no idea what you’re talking about, as in zero, zilch, nada. “T2 and T3 state schools” do not employ racial preferences at all. Those schools are non-selective, and what’s more, they admit largely based on numbers only: if your SAT and GPA are above some cutoff, you get admitted. Barring prestige institutional scholarships, those schools do not even require essays or care about what extracurriculars you participated in.</p>
<p>It is the “elite colleges at the top of the pyramid” that practice racial preferences. These are the selective schools that have to use subjective criteria to distinguish among the applicants, for “numbers only” is not enough for them to whittle down the applicant pool to their desired class sizes.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to claim that racial preferences aren’t a big deal. It’s quite something else to claim that racial preferences are most prevalent at schools that admit based on numbers only; that shows that you are not even aware of the basic facts involved in college admissions.</p>
<p>^ Then you should read the early immigrant history to see what discrimination they faced.</p>
<p>Early Asians faced plenty of discrimination in this country. Blacks were brought in chains centuries ago but the other colors (read non-white) who came voluntarily faced discrimination.</p>
<p>“Let’s see. One side is protesting loss of life and brutality. The other is protesting a SAT score? Yeah, I’d call that whining. Do Asians remember what real discrimination was like? If not I wish the elders would remind them about it.”</p>
<p>You’re right, systematic and government-sponsored racial profiling is OK as long as it benefits the right races.</p>
<p>^You’re completely mixed up and you’re showing ignorance as to the law of supply and demand and political pressure. It really shows how fixated some people are on the elite schools. It also shows a certain conceit, apparently believing most minorities have not earned their way. (at the elite schools)</p>
<p>To put in terms that you will understand. The demand at the elite schools is so high, and the number of minority applicants is so great that the elite schools (6-10% selectivity) have very little need to employ AA. If it does employ AA, it likely is very little and only hurts the same class of minority. </p>
<p>State schools (50%+ selectivity) by mandates from the BD of Regents and other political pressures will routinely waive SAT and GPA requirements. BTW this type of AA benefits all races including Asians.</p>
<p>“Yes, perazziman feels the same way. I criticize this not so much because it’s an outright call for a quota but because of what it implies: elites should admit blacks to facilitate self-segregation.”</p>
<p>Sigh. You are losing points with me again. This doesn’t sound up to your usual level of discourse. You don’t need to say crazy things to keep this going.</p>
<p>This is where I say peace out, and go back outside to play. </p>
<p>America’s Cup and Pistahan/The Filipino American Arts Celebration! Its a madhouse!</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Don’t even try to claim that I “believe most [blacks and Hispanics] have not earned their way [at elites].” You’re the one claiming that most blacks and Hispanics at “T2 and T3 state schools” didn’t earn their way there; I’m the one claiming that they got in through their own merits.</p></li>
<li><p>For the “elite schools” to have “very little need to employ [racial preferences]” would mean that black and Hispanic applicants are basically indistinguishable in terms of how strong their applications, objective and subjective, are with respect to their white and Asian peers. That is simply not the case. Again, data is scarce, but [for</a> those two years at Duke](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch]for”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch), black and Hispanic students who chose Duke ranked lower than their white and Asian peers on almost all criteria, including the subjective ones.</p></li>
<li><p>Wow, “routinely waive SAT and GPA requirements”? And you dare to point fingers at me and say that I’m the one “showing a certain conceit”? You’re the one outright asserting that blacks and Hispanics at “T2 or T3 state schools” are there because people are doing them a favor!</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The only reason none of the pro-racial preference people have called you out on the outright lies you have written is that they don’t want to speak against one of their “own.”</p>
<p>That is what you and he are saying, ultimately: blacks need other blacks around to socialize and “feel comfortable” with. In a word, you’re talking about self-segregation. If speaking bluntly about this causes me to lose points, so be it. “Diversity” is already a pathetically weak justification for racial preferences, but self-segregation is a complete non-starter for me.</p>
<p>Many groups faced discrimination when they first arrived - Japanese Americans faced significant discrimination during World War II, and were forced into relocation camps. But much of what Asians experience today does not rise to the level of discrimination still faced by many blacks. A poor white person shopping may be profiled based on what he is wearing, but a black person (rich or poor) is often profiled based upon skin color alone - the assumption being that the nice car he is driving was stolen, or the nice clothing was purchased with drug money. </p>
<p>Affirmative action is meant to ensure that the minority applicant gets another look - not necessarily that he gets a leg up. Is there really something wrong giving a minority applicant a advantage similar to that given to a star athlete, if a college wants to attract both? We see similar advantage given to young men who apply to liberal arts colleges, where they are underrepresented, and to young women in technical schools where they are underrepresented. If you look at the graduation rates at the elite schools, they are not admitting students who don’t belong, they are making a choice of who they want from among a large pool of qualified applicants.</p>
It’s not about self-segregation, but about isolation. having others like yourself on campus make you feel comfortable not because you can go off into a corner with them, but because you can be in a room where you identify with others in the room - you don’t feel out of place because there is nobody else that looks like you. The same applies to women in technical schools. It can be isolating when you are the only black or only female in most if not all of your classes, if the only others you see like yourself are the custodial staff. When some of your classmates or teachers see you and ask if you’re in the right place, because you look out of place.</p>
<p>This is the inevitable conclusion of arguing for racial preferences on historical grievance grounds: “my ancestors were oppressed more than yours.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that even mean, “another look, not necessarily a leg up”? And I would say that giving “underrepresented” minorities preferences similar to athletes is wrong, because the preference is given based on racial classification and not exemplary performance in a specific academic or extracurricular endeavor.</p>
<p>From what basis does the mutual identification arise? Shared racial classification (i.e. “looks like me”)? That seems pretty shallow, even more so on an university campus. Shouldn’t the mutual identification be based on shared interests, passions, hobbies, and so forth? I would (and do) identify much more with individuals who share some interests, passions, and hobbies with me but are not of my racial classification than individuals who “look like me” but with whom I have very little in common in those regards.</p>
<p>No again you are wrong. My example was to point out that AA is more prevalent at T3 state schools than the elite schools. As I said before it benefits all races including Asians. To what percentage does it help. I don’t know, but it is probably small but not as small as at an elite school. </p>
<p>Again, I still advise staying away from the word games. You can try to twist and turn my words, but I’ll just straighten them out again, allowing me the additional opportunity to prove you wrong.</p>
<p>If you think making up claims with no supporting evidence is “proving [me] wrong,” I feel sorry for all of your teachers. Your “example” is not an example at all. It’s an assertion made with nothing to back it up.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at a few real examples to see whether your nonsensical “[racial preferences] is more prevalent at T3 state schools than the elite schools” holds any water. Illinois is not restricted from considering racial classification in its public universities by state law. Let’s take a look at UI Chicago, a T2 state school, and UIUC, a T1 state school.</p>
<p>Let’s move on to another state that is allowed to consider racial classification in its public universities: Pennsylvania. Let’s compare Penn State University Park, a T1 state school, and Penn State Abington, a T3 state school.</p>
<p>Now, then, still want to pretend that you know what you’re talking about? Oh, does that count as a kick?</p>
<p>Edit
By the way, if you still think you’re right, feel free to check the common datasets of any private elite university. Tell me if you find one that has “racial/ethnic status” not considered.</p>
<p>Fabrzio: As I said before, keep twisting my words, I really do enjoy straightening them out and making you look silly in the process. The argument pertained to where is AA more pervasive (Elite schools V. T2&3). IT IS NOT DO ALL T2 & T3 SCHOOLS HAVE AA. THAT IS YOUR TWIST AND TURN ON YOUR PART TO SAVE FACE. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE COMPARING A FEW SCHOOLS AGAINST A FEW THOUSAND. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS AND PROBABILITY? </p>
<p>You might find this easier to understand as far as the pervasiveness of AA goes.</p>
<p>Who makes more hamburgers?
Elite schools: Mom’s kitchen
T2 & T3: McDonalds.</p>
<p>And I destroyed your argument with three counterexamples. I picked three states that are allowed to consider racial preferences: Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. All of these states are considered to have strong flagship public universities. (I cannot use California or Michigan, which also have strong flagship publics, because those states are forbidden from considering racial classification.)</p>
<p>In none of those states does your prediction hold. It is the flagship that considers “racial/ethnic” status, not the branch campuses of the state system. There are only so many states, and since you chose to continue believing that you have any clue what you’re talking about, let’s keep on going.</p>
<p>That’s four states. Five states have passed ballot initiatives forbidding the use of racial classification: California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and Arizona. Florida does not consider racial classification by state executive order. And Georgia doesn’t consider it because of a court ruling at the district level, if I recall correctly.</p>
<p>We can go through the remaining 39 states if you still want to pretend that you know what you’re talking about. To get the ball rolling, let’s cut it down to 38 with Ohio.</p>
<p>My assertion was that T2 & T3 have more pervasive AA than the Elite schools with (5-10% selectivity). Not all T2 &T3 embrace AA in the same manner but the sheer number of T2&T3 schools makes the concept a slam dunk. </p>
<p>I’m not going to count the schools. Besides there’s probably a post on CC somewhere about good AA colleges.</p>