<p>So what’s okay about having these schools 50% white instead of 50% Asian?
And don’t you think that as a minority group Asians face some (though I’d incline to say not to the same extent) of the same discrimination URM’s face? Keep in mind affirmative action hurts Asians, not whites who are mostly not affected by it. So you think it makes sense to help overcome the discrimination one minority group
Faces to add extra discrimination upon another minority group?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t assume that. In fact, I didn’t say anything about the “lower 25%.” What I said was that there simply are not enough high-scoring blacks for every private elite to have its “diversity” “goal” met. But if you want to talk about the lower 25%, no problem. If these private elites do “similarly admit” lower scoring whites and Asians, then why is the 25th percentile in critical reading at Yale 710/800?</p>
<p>As for the rest of your reply, you did not answer my question as to why not considering racial classification fails to produce a “diverse” student body. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The shallowest form of “diversity” is physical appearance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. Why is it that I can so easily imagine someone who doesn’t look like you saying these very words to justify a different set of policies 80 years ago?</p>
<p>@fabrizio - But today these policies are put forth to support the common “good.”
We found very similar sentiments across the board. My D is attending Penn in the fall and the diversity is obvious and paramount. Multiple languages, appearances, cultural diversity everywhere you look. As I stated, if you disagree these institutions are not for you. I honestly don’t understand the continuous railing against it. Go elsewhere!</p>
<p>To @theanaconda, there are no other minority groups in the U.S. today subjected to such blatant, obvious, and violent racism other than brown people. Asian populations are trusted based on appearance. Smart, studious, responsible. Blacks, latinos, arabs - not so much. It is ASSUMED they are lesser than. </p>
<p>@Mayihelp,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can it be “safe to say” when the ivy schools refuse to release that information bcs they know by doing so, it will generate a serious s***storm. If it was only 7% v 8%, no one would be complaining.</p>
<p>Here is some real data released directly by UMass Amherst</p>
<p><a href=“UMass Amherst: Commission on Campus Diversity”>http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/challenge2.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a genteel way of saying, “Back then these policies didn’t benefit me. Now they do. So I like them!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And as I said, what you can “see” is the shallowest form of diversity.</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s get a few things straight here. First, thanks to the magic of government-approved racial and ethnic classifications, Arabs (and Persians) are considered white. Thus, they receive no racial preferences despite their being “assumed lesser than.”</p>
<p>Second, I would venture that the majority of Latinos who benefit from racial preferences at private elites are…white Latinos. You almost always cannot tell that these people are Latino until they tell you that they are.</p>
<p>To ignore that physical differences have led to different streams of consciousness so to speak in this country would be naive. After all we are talking about some schools that a few years ago would not have allowed my daughters to attend. I think a gender difference would be a physical appearance and no one denies that schools work to balance gender. In doing so there will be occasions that being a guy or a gal may make a difference or tip the scale.
I think anyone has a right to challenge any process. It doesn’t bother me at all that Cal or Michigan wants to use a more numerical based admissions process and that Stanford and Harvard desires to be Holistic. There is room for both. The problem as I see it with the argument here is that in order for it to prevail you would have to see the elite private schools forego an admission process that they have used for several years with no tangible negative results. More importantly they have not falsely advertised or been disingenuous. With a subjective holistic process you cannot argue declaratively that someone has been ill treated in the process. Nor can you argue that one person deserves a spot over another. One of my children applied to 5 Ivy League schools. She was admitted at 2,
rejected at 2. And wait listed at another. Now many people would ask how she could get into one school that would be considered a “first tier” Ivy and rejected at a lower level Ivy. That is called a holistic subjective process and you cannot make blanket assumptions about who deserves to go where. </p>
<p>GMTplus7. If you go to the JBHE Journal of Black Higher Education. Nov 27 2013 issue. You will find the numbers I used to support my argument. For the Yale class of 2013. 2,727 students who identified as Black applied. 147 enrolled for that class. Let’s use round numbers assuming a similar yield rates for blacks that exist for everybody else around 70% we’ll still go with a worst case scenario and assume that Yale admitted 200 black students that year. I think that would come to a little less than 7.5 % of black students admitted. I can’t speak for UMass but if you got to the site you’ll find that the numbers are not that variant for several of the elite schools. As you said yourself maybe no one should be complaining. </p>
<p>My bad lets move the admitted up to 225 that would be a more accurate worst case scenario that would leave an admission rate of 8.25. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t support gender preferences either. And you still haven’t answered my question: why is it not possible to obtain real “diversity” without considering racial classification?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So holistic is just a euphemism for considering racial classification / having racial preferences? [Because</a> at Cal,](<a href=“http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UC%20Berkeley%20CDS%202013-14%20(June).pdf]Because”>http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/UC%20Berkeley%20CDS%202013-14%20(June).pdf) the application essay is “very important”; extracurricular activities, character/personal qualities, volunteer work, and work experience are “important”; and first-generation is “considered.” [Meanwhile</a> at Harvard](<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf]Meanwhile”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/CDS_2011-2012_Final.pdf), everything I just mentioned is “considered.”</p>
<p>Really, the only substantive differences are that Cal considers state residency and doesn’t consider racial classification whereas Harvard doesn’t consider state residency but does consider racial classification. Funny how you describe Cal as having a “more numerical-based admissions process” and Harvard as having a “holistic” process, isn’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you think this is a good thing?</p>
<p>@Mayihelp,</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that blacks have experienced the most extreme discrimination in the US’s history, and while other minority groups today also experience discrimination, it’s no where as bad as what blacks encounter. Asian men don’t get pulled over for ‘driving while asian’.</p>
<p>What I really have a problem with is if colleges are going to give a significant boost to a particular group, then there should be some objective & reasonable standards as to who qualifies to be counted in that group to get those preferences. Right now, it is self-determined and self-reported, and the standard now seems to be the one-drop rule. The categorization for hispanic is especially, egregiously arbitrary. If your grandfather is an ethnic-German who immigrated to Venezuela in 1945, that makes u hispanic?</p>
<p>If the rationale for racial preference is to redress DISCRIMINATION, then it should be narrowly focused to help those who are being discriminated against, and not to help the likes of 1/16th native-american blonde Elizabeth Warren.</p>
<p>If the rationale for racial preference is to ensure DIVERSITY, then it should be focused to recruit people who add real diversity, and not to recruit the likes of 1/16th native-american blonde Elizabeth Warren.</p>
<p>The colleges, in their cynical game to compete in the USNWR rankings don’t care to set or enforce racial classification standards. They just want to get their URM numbers up.</p>
<p>These arguments about Asians are the same ones made against Jews in the early 20th century (in fact holistic admissions were started to keep Jews out of elite schools). They look the same, act the same, we want more “diversity” explain why 40-50% white is more diverse than 40-50% Asian.
And I disagree, Asians still face discrimination (although I’d agree not to the extent blacks or Latinos face), no
Creativity, are here to steal jobs, only thing they know how to do is work hard, are naive, and in a majority white population it’s ridiculous to suggest that these stereotypes aren’t used to harm Asians.
Btw I’m morally against gender preference, in fact I find it ridiculous to keep it when in fact far more women than men graduate high school, are enrolled in and graduate college. But that’s a side note.</p>
<p>I do not know any situation where diversity is not race intensive. If I move into a new area and I indicate a desire for diversity in the area I choose to live. I’m not going to be shown an area in which one person makes 30k and another makes 200k I’m going to be shown someplace where there is a plethora of ethnicities. So why ignore the obvious. You have to consider race due to the fact that diversity does have a core minimum. In other words I would not consider a school that has a 2 or 3 % enrollment of black students diverse. However maybe what you’re looking for already exists. Isn’t it possible that the numbers have settled to a comfortable amount for all ethnicities since they tend to remain consistent at the elite schools.
GMTplus7. I agree with much of your last post. However I think the Elizabeth Warren cases are rare but still disingenuous to the process. Also it is not a significant boost I don’t think you’re implying this but saying a significant boost does imply that a portion of the students are not qualified. As stated earlier if Yale is only admitting 8 % of these students who apply there is no reason to think they are not qualified.
In regards to subjectivity have you never interviewed for a job. Do you really believe in most cases hiring an employee is not a subjective process. I do it all the time and there have been several times I’ve hired someone who did not have the best resume or the most experience because they fit the situation better.
I am not arguing against asians. I simply supporting a system that has decided there is something gained by having all races represented at a healthy amount on a college campuses. That there is something gained by exposure to people on a consistent basis that are different from myself. I also think there is something gained by being somewhere that has a population of people that may have similar experiences to myself. The importance of not feeling alone no matter what you’re ethnicity should not be understated.
I feel the same way about gender balance. It improves every facet of a university.
The admission process in the Ivy League has been holistic/subjective from the very beginning. Standardized testing was actually instituted to try to minimize the subjectivity in use many years ago.
URM numbers at elite schools are not going up they have leveled off.
By the way the admission percentage for Asians at Cal in 1997 was 28% in 2012 it was 27%. The admission rate percentage has held level for almost 15 years. There are simply more Asian kids applying to Cal. Which makes sense given the large population in the state especially the Bay Area. However whether in affirmative action or out of it the percentage of admission applications accepted has stayed the same a little over 1 out if 4. </p>
<p>Idk if this is relevant but im biracial (black dad white mom) and I’ve recently found out that my record says I’m multiracial and so I got my mom to call and change it to black. I mean the president of the United states is mixed race and is still considered black.</p>
<p>Not that im bashing my white half it’s just in all honesty being African-American will get me more scholarship opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that if your realtor actually showed you an area where the upper middle class and the working class lived side-by-side, that would be a truly diverse area indeed. By using “diverse” so narrowly, you are affirming that when you use the word, you are referring exclusively to the shallowest type of diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So at what point does it become “diverse” and how is that point not a quota?</p>
<p>Let’s live in reality that neighborhood doesn’t exist. I think that 7-8 % would be the minimum that I would find comfortable for my children. Hey I don’t think any system is perfect maybe there are soft quotas or categorical parameters in place. If you believe diversity is important to the academic experience than it may be something you tolerate. If not you may be unhappy about it. I believe the former is more likely to lead to success. You’re entitled to believe otherwise. </p>
<p>I am curious why do you think other forms are diversity are any less or more “Shallow” than ethnicity. Just curious to your reasoning it’s an interesting take. </p>
<p>@Mayihelp, </p>
<p>At my kids’ int’l schools in europe & asia, black American kids were just considered American. Kids of other nationalities were considered culturally diverse. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is why I said it “would be a truly diverse area indeed.” I think you grudgingly agree if you used it as an example and then backed off by citing “reality.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s so magical about 7-8%? What do you get with 7-8% that you don’t get with 6%?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Real diversity is difference in ideas, interests, talents, and opinions. These are things that you often can’t “see.” You have to actually get to know people to find them out; that’s the very opposite of shallow.</p>