<p>There’s a reason you’re so defensive: you know that your position is hypocritical. Make it easy on yourself and recognize that supporting racial preferences doesn’t mean pushing for elite campuses to follow America’s demographics so rigidly. Princeton practices racial preferences, but it certainly does not insist that it look exactly like the United States.</p>
<p>By insisting that elites’ demographics so strictly mirror America’s, you open yourself up to two huge criticisms:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If 70% white is OK, then why is 70% Asian or 70% black not OK?</p></li>
<li><p>If you think there are “too many” Asians at your school, and you’re an Asian at your school, why don’t you leave?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>By simply saying that you support racial preferences, but the outcomes need not match American demographics exactly, these two criticisms become moot.</p>
<p>I’m honestly really annoyed when people say that admissions should be completely race-blind and only focus on economics. I think that socioeconomic status should play a larger role, and that race should play a slightly smaller role, but as long as the world isn’t race-blind, college admissions shouldn’t be either. Even when adjusted for income level, blacks still academically perform at a lower lever than whites, due to peer pressure, cultural stereotypes, general racism, etc, and this should be factored in when reviewing a student’s application. Of course, a rich black kid will have more opportunities than a poor white one, but in most cases a black kid will have fewer opportunities than a white kid with equal income. And no, AffAct doesn’t perpetrate racism, it completely ignores the problem and assumes that after 200 years of slavery and 100 years of discrimination, blacks are on equal footing with whites. They’re not.</p>
<p>Both socioeconomic status and race affect a student’s situation, performance, and grades, and both should be factored in college admission decisions.</p>
<p>Ron Unzs research showed that Americas Asian population accounts for 5 percent of college-age students and for Jews, just 1.8 percent. Yet there are almost twice as many Jews in the Ivy League. Surely we are not suggesting that Jews should be capped at 2 percent for the sake of diversity, are we?</p>
<p>I find the following work very helpful in explaining our behaviour:</p>
<p>From my own experience, the strongest affinity group for most people is race/ethnicity. This discussion clearly shows this is not true in all cases. Perhaps some version of the Stockholm Syndrome is in play here?</p>
<p>"And no, AffAct doesn’t perpetrate racism, it completely ignores the problem and assumes that after 200 years of slavery and 100 years of discrimination, blacks are on equal footing with whites. They’re not.
"</p>
<p>The ‘Black World’ discussion had been a long one in an older ‘Race’ thread (9 or 10). You should just go to those old threads to read them up. There is no need to explain again.</p>
<p>But Whites liberated Blacks with their own blood, that should count for something. </p>
<p>Asians weren’t in a better situation than blacks. For example, 70 MILLIONS Chinese in China were killed by Mao, Zedong just decades ago. The whole country was in horror during those decades. (Outside world didn’t know anything about the massacre.) Their people were intimidated everyday, so they taught their children and grandchildren to not fight with government just to keep them alive. (You should look that up.) This may be one of the reasons that Asians in America didn’t fight hard on admission discriminations, but they are changing because the second generation Asian-Americans are born and educated here. Also, Japanese in America was discriminated during WWII. </p>
<p>Bringing up history of each races, no one were lucky.</p>
<p>No race should be placed above other races for college admissions.</p>
<p>Even if it was white blood that freed the blacks, one civil war doesn’t equal 300 years of discrimination. The US’s laws favored whites until the mid 1960’s, and that’s reflected in society today.</p>
<p>The Japanese did have to deal with internment during WWII, yes, but that’s still not nearly as damaging as (and I hate to keep bringing this up) three centuries of slavery and inequality in the US. What happened in Asia itself isn’t really relevant here, as Asians in the US right now don’t have to deal with it, and I’m referring to college admissions in the US. Most college-bound Asian kids here weren’t directly affected, and American society wasn’t heavily affected either.</p>
<p>Until society is race blind (and hard data shows that it isn’t), then college admission should consider race, as it does have an effect on a person’s upbringing, even when eliminating income from the equation.</p>
<p>Following this logic, since each and everyone grows up with certain advantages and disadvanges, the only fair practice is admission through lottery to eliminate any bias caused by personal and social experiences.</p>
<p>Or they could review apps holistically, considering the advantages and disadvantages students had growing up and evaluating their achievements in the contexts of these factors</p>
<p>Being high income vs low income, educated parents vs uneducated parents, married parents vs divorced parents, white vs black, top private school vs crappy public school, alcoholic/drug addicted, unsupportive parents vs involved, supportive parents, etc etc etc. </p>
<p>If it had a major effect on their upbringing, it would only be fair if it was considered in the application. Adcoms are evaluating who you are and what you can bring to the table, and understanding what shaped you helps them to do that better.</p>
<p>How can you ever attain a society blind to racial classification if you continue to consider racial classification?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds great on paper, but in practice, what you describe doesn’t seem to happen. [First-</a> and second-generation black Americans](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]First-”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black) were “overrepresented” at the Ivy Leagues by over 300% in 1999. These Americans are not descended from slaves and very likely are the children of highly-educated immigrants. Yet, they appear to be disproportionately benefiting from the racial preferences accorded to blacks.</p>
<p>Admissions should factor in the attitudes of society instead of ignoring them. A race-blind society would be ideal, but since it doesn’t exist and race still has a major effect on people, it should be considered, just like EVERYTHING ELSE that has a major effect on people, like income, school-type, and parental education level.</p>
<p>I should take you to the woodshed just for old times sake. But I’ll let someone else have fun with you. BTW you’ve written four sentences and have four mistakes of critical reasoning. Congrats you’ve won the superfecta of ignorance.</p>
<p>So if society is racist, admissions should be racist?</p>
<p>Also, to all, please ignore sosomenza’s incoherent rants. You can peruse the previous version of this thread to verify that he has no idea what he’s talking about and that any advice he gives is not to be taken seriously.</p>
<p>Yes, because if society is racist, then the victims of society’s racism will be affected in an adverse way. This negative effect should be considered when the adcoms evaluate the victim’s achievements, because it will take more effort for a victim of racism to achieve the same as a person who is not a victim of racism. If the victim and the nonvictim, all other factors the same, achieve at the same level, the victim had to overcome more, put in more effort, and is therefore more worthy than the nonvictim. Same principle goes with socioeconomic status, parental education level, etc.</p>
<p>You said, “Admissions should factor in the attitudes of society instead of ignoring them.” I asked you if society is racist, then should admissions also be racist? You replied “yes,” but it appears I did not ask the question clearly.</p>
<p>If society is, for example, racist against blacks, should admissions also be racist against blacks? Isn’t that “factoring in the attitudes of society”?</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have worded that more clearly. By “factoring in the attitudes of society” I didn’t mean having those attitudes, I meant considering the effects the attitudes have when reading apps. Like I said, this means realizing that a victim of any negative force (racism, poverty, unsupportive parents) will have to work harder to achieve the same as a person who isn’t a victim, all other factors adjusted. If they achieve the same amount, the victim had to put in more effort to overcome this negative force, and deserves admittance over the nonvictim simply due to the extra effort he put in.</p>
<p>You’re right, if they had well-educated, well-off parents, then they have advantages that most other blacks don’t have, and their app should be evaluated as such. They still have to deal with the racial factors I listed before, but they also have the luxury of parents who understand the value of education and can afford their kids opportunities less educated parents can’t. I think that a poor black kid with uneducated parents who performed similarly or slightly below a rich, 2nd-gen African with educated parents should be given priority due to his poverty forcing him to overcome much more, which should help correct the overrepresentation of 1 and 2 gens. The world doesn’t revolve around what I think, though, and the system will never be perfect.</p>
<p>""Until society is race blind (and hard data shows that it isn’t), then college admission should consider race, as it does have an effect on a person’s upbringing, even when eliminating income from the equation. "</p>
<p>Told you to read thread 9, the ‘black world’ argument had been defeated. Every race have cases or general difficult upbringings. I’ll let it rest. No need to spend time on this.</p>
<p>He probably does get “priority.” But this won’t “correct the overrepresentation.” First- and second-generation black Americans are “overrepresented” because they very likely make up much more than 13% of the qualified black applicant pool. If you exclude 41-13=28 (%) of qualified black applicants because they’re first- and second-generation, you will have to recruit from a weaker pool of applicants. Elites have no incentive to do that: first- and second-generation black Americans give them “diversity” without any significant penalties to their institutions’ average SAT scores for ranking purposes and they probably don’t have to give these students much financial aid. It’s just win / win / win for them to admit these students.</p>
<p>That’s fine for these students and for the institutions, but it doesn’t sound like the lofty goals you describe are being reached.</p>
<p>Of course they’re not being reached. I was just stating my version of an ideal system based on our current society. Everyone’s version of an ideal system is different though, so a truly perfect system will never be reached.</p>