<p>There are lots of factors that go into admit decisions. Chances are, most people here have no real idea. Or they reject insights when they are shared because, after all, someone else, probably on a racism thread, said something else-- and they chose to believe that.</p>
<p>It’s not as simple as who’s val or whatever racial/ethnic minority. At the schools people tend to whine about, there are tens of thousands of apps. And a sizeable chunk are highly qualified. They are all special snowflakes. Wanna worry about something, make it geographical diversity.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to encourage future generations of minorities, start by being a role model in thinking and analytical skills, how completely and fairly you look at sides of an issue, how you rebound and move forward, and how you generously share your time and skills with those who could use the encouragement. Think about it.</p>
<p>Agreed, lookingforward. The op’s thread got merged with old threads on a related topic, and the thread goes right back to the old arguments… Wash, rinse, repeat.</p>
<p>One point that is made far too infrequently is that there are innumerable different ways to group/categorize people. One can do it by race, gender, ethnicity, languages spoken, ancestry, sexual orientation, family income or wealth, family structure (e.g. two parent family), SAT score, quality and place of education, level of education, type of job, athleticism, age, degrees, home state, home country, religion, health (including whether disabled), height, physical attractiveness, etc… Also, note that virtually everyone is in at least one disfavored group (if you construct enough groups!) and in at least one favored group. The groupings that the press and the politicians focus on, which determine whether any particular individuals are deemed to be victims or beneficiaries of discrimination, are determined by a great many factors, but almost always there are powerful forces, often nonobvious or even hidden, driving the process in pursuit of narrow self-interest. </p>
<p>I just wish that people generally were more aware of the manipulation and the pursuit of self-interest that are behind the determination of the priority of groupings or the focus to be put on certain groupings.</p>
<p>It didn’t? The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 that the Fifth Circuit didn’t apply strict scrutiny. That’s a big deal because it means the glory days of racial preferences are over: universities now have to seriously answer questions they have handwaved for over a decade, like what “critical mass” means and how it differs from a quota.</p>
<p>Many of us feel it doesn’t mean one word more than it states. For lack of “strict scrutiny” it just goes back a level in the court system. Nothing can be predicted from that. </p>
<p>For fun, critical mass: size, number, or amount of something that is needed to cause a particular result. Quota: an official limit on the number or amount of people or things that are allowed. Other than this, I won’t respond to Fisher. We said it all in that thread.</p>
<p>You seem to define quotas as an upper bound: we can have no more than Y “underrepresented” minorities. But is that how quotas are defined elsewhere? It seems to me that quotas are usually defined as lower bounds: we must have at least X “underrepresented” minorities. And lower bound is how you defined critical mass.</p>
<p>@lookingforward #501 - completely agree! Helping minority is a task way beyond policy. Our family has always been doing our shares in supporting the economically-disadvantaged kids - donate winter wears, tutor, sponsor several kids with year-round music lessons because my own kids receive scholarship from their respective teacher as a result of their achievements… It aches me each year when I receive the Christmas wishlist from the kids in need, because it never failed that they want game station or games. I have so far refused to donate for that cause; but if the wish is to have a year-round weekly tutoring session, my whole family will sign up in a heart-beat.</p>
<p>The media along with large corporations have led all children to believe that Christmas is a toy holiday. All children ask for toys on Christmas. I am sure your children at some point in time asked for an electronic gift. Did it break your heart?</p>
<p>Right my boy asked for the same things when he was younger, and we quickly found out the damage these things did and strategically steered him away from them. </p>
<p>I think my disappointment is this- if we want to address the needs of these children, let’s help them at where they need the most. I believe that education is a serious matter and most of the time it is not fun. Love and care as a parent comes with lots of responsibilities, and being a role model and carefully guide them is one of those. Perhaps I am too involved in wanting to help… But I will forever question the value of giving these kids what they want, instead of focusing on what they need. </p>
<p>@OHMomof2 - you are right, no kid asks for that. But shouldn’t that be something that the community advocates? I wish I can talk to each of these kids (btw, I don’t know their identity) and tell them that they don’t need gadges, they need education, focus, good study habit, etc., things that are essential not only for them, but for the generations to come …</p>
<p>But it is a Christmas list…kids don’t ask for tutors on Christmas lists-it would never occur to them to do so. I am sure if you made your offer of tutoring known in some way other than as a Christmas gift, you would find plenty of takers. Plenty of people however find joy in providing a disadvantaged child with something they “want” as a Christmas gift-its kind of the whole idea.</p>
<p>i think affirmative action is unfair. I didn’t choose my ethnicity anymore than minorities do, yet I am given an unfair disadvantage because of it, so is affirmative action not discrimination, too? </p>
<p>The biggest reason I oppose affirmative action is that i don’t think it is effective. To accept students/employees who have less abilities/credentials just because they are a minority would be that we would have to lower standards for these individuals to pass. This is especially true in universities, which grade on bell curves and whose professors write and grade tests accordingly. Minorities admitted through affirmative action are less prepared and/or motivated. They likely would not pass, much less thrive, in such environments. To retain these individuals, the universities must lower their standards, which would lower the prestige of the university, which is why the minorities wanted to attend those universities in the first place, right?</p>
<p>Without affirmative action, everyone, regardless of race, would be on a equal level playing field. That is true justice.</p>