<p>Surely you comprehend that the reason those 4 groups were listed by name prior to 2004 is because their representation was less than their share of the population? Or are you asserting that this is not the case?</p>
<p>The AAMC is clear as to why they changed it:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>The change - 10 years old now, by the way, so the old definition is irrelevant to any discussion we might be having as to the definition of the term TODAY - allows the AAMC to take into account other populations that are underrepresented relative to their population, not only the 4 who were historically, and still are, underrepresented.</p>
<p>In India, affirmative action is applied to what are officially referred to as “backward” castes. The objective is to redress historical socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than to ensure proportional racial representation.</p>
<p>No it’s not. By SCOTUS decree, it’s now being marketed that white kids will derive educational benefit from having a threshold number of black & hispanic kids but not too many asian kids in their classroom. </p>
<p>Your position is that the term is “obvious” and defines itself. Your own examples show that this is not the case…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…let’s go back to your MIT hiring link once again. You’ll kindly note that they said, quote, “It is important to note that a significant number of URM faculty are also of international origin.”</p>
<p>Huh. Setting aside the problems of Constitutionality, by your own admission, the thinking behind affirmative action in the U.S. is redressing historical socioeconomic disadvantage.</p>
<p>So how on Earth does counting foreign-born individuals who completed all of their pre-graduate education in another country as “URM” help “redress historical socioeconomic disadvantages” in the United States?</p>
<p>@fabrizio, the recruitment of athletes is acceptable to you because “they are good at something?” That’s one of the most demeaning, biased statements I’ve encountered in this never-ending argument on URM admittance. </p>
<p>I just attended my D’s freshman seminar at UPenn over family weekend, and the racial diversity in the room was outstanding. I’d say out of the 20-ish students in the room, about 5 were black (my D included,) another 4 or 5 asian, someone was Mexican, another Indonesian, a couple Indian, the rest white (although appearances can be deceiving.) The topic at hand? Class in America - and man were they ripping apart the notion that America is a “classless, egalitarian society.” The TA leading the discussion was a PhD student from England and the conversation was so uplifting. These bright, young people GET it, unlike you. They are AT a prestigious institution, amongst incredibly smart, articulate people of all races and ethnicities. Not one person in that room was lesser than another in intellect, and they ALL were passionately engaged in the conversation.</p>
<p>You are someone on the internet ranting about the policies at the best institutions in our country. I however am very glad to have witnessed first hand the opinions of those students really living it.</p>
<p>Obviously it doesn’t - that’s why they “note” it. To wit: “It is important to note that a significant number of URM faculty are also of international origin.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whatever, fabrizio. Show me a school or educational org that currently defines “underrepresented minority” as something other than referring to that group’s percentage of the US population, then. I’ve asked you twice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the point being made now, that everyone benefits form having minority groups represented in proportion to their population in the US. That’s why I said you don’t hear “redress” anymore. I’d argue that the white kids benefit, as do the Asian kids and probably the URM kids too.</p>
<p>Then there’s no need for racial preferences, is there? This is what people like you will never get: stating that “not one person in that room was lesser than another in intellect” weakens the argument for racial preferences. If they are as good as you claim, then they should still get in with race-blind admissions, no?</p>
<p>So hiring them does absolutely nothing to help “redress historical socioeconomic disadvantages,” but it lets MIT claim that they are “diverse” and committed to removing the “under” in “underrepresented”? Awesome!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I told you that I didn’t believe undergrad admissions offices wanted to define this explicitly. I cannot provide evidence on something I don’t believe exists in the first place.</p>
<p>Of course. None of your links have supported your position that the definition is “obvious.” Note that while MIT includes internationals as “URMs” for purposes of faculty “diversity,” Penn State states that international students are generally in a “separate category” from “URM.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To repeat myself, why should I? I don’t believe undergrad admissions offices want to define the term. You think they do. Those who make affirmative claims provide evidence. </p>
<p>@fabrizio, no. Because those who attend the worst school districts in the poorest sections of this country are overwhelmingly minorities. Their scores are reflective of innate intelligence and hard work, not excessive tutoring and exposure to contant encouragement to get into the best colleges. They demonstrate grit and determination and are as well qualified as the ORMs with near perfect scores - the administrations know this and are doing a small part to level the playing field.</p>
<p>@picktails
those aren’t the URM"s that are getting in. The URM’s that are getting in are for the most part from the same economic group as the whites and ORM’s who’re getting in; upper-middle class families. the bottom 20-25% makes up 5% of the the class at harvard, URM’s make up about 25%. So even assuming that all the poor people are URM’s (which is most definitely false), only 20% of them are poor. </p>
<p>affirmative action is supposed to be the solution to white privilege (which still definitely exists). In its implementation, it’s helping some minority groups and punishing others. I doubt you can honestly say that asians don’t suffer from discrimination (that’s a primary reason why few of them want to go into more subjective humanities), but all affirmative action does for them is to pile onto that discrimination. </p>
<p>As theanaconda has already told you, you are wrongly assuming that these students are the ones receiving the racial preferences. That is nonsense. I can’t find any figures for Penn, but I don’t think they’d be any different than Harvard or Duke.</p>
<p>[In</a> 2001-2002](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2010/03/31/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors]In”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2010/03/31/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors), the average family incomes of Hispanic and black students at Duke were $170,980 and $118,316, respectively. Note that these are 2001-2002 dollars; adjusted for inflation, they’d be $229,113 and $158,543 in today’s dollars, respectively. Huh, doesn’t seem like the average black or Hispanic Duke student from that year’s class came from a disadvantaged background. For reference, the average Hispanic student’s family income actually exceeded that of the average Asian student!</p>
<p>Now, like I said, I couldn’t find such information from Penn, so feel free to believe that Penn is different from two peer institutions. But quite frankly, while it may make you sleep better at night believing that affirmative action helps poor, disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics, the reality is different. In reality, it is just a middle-class entitlement. You are helping the children of wealthy, educated, successful professionals much more than you are helping the children of working-class single-parent households.</p>
<p>If you’re still OK with that, fine. But don’t act like that isn’t what you’re supporting.</p>
<p>At the tippy top most selective schools that educate, oh, maybe 1% of all college students - if that, you will find the highest family incomes (across all races). Is that surprising to you?</p>
<p>To me? No. You should ask this question to picktails, who seems to think that these “tippy top most selective schools” are recruiting tons of “URMs” from, quote, “the worst school districts in the poorest sections of this country.”</p>
<p>I never said I believed the majority of URM students came from underprivileged households, that is your assumption from my comments ( and you know what they say about making assumptions.) However, incidents of appearance based racism are frequent and still common in this country. So no, I don’t have a problem with colleges and universities allotting spots to people of color who are qualified; I strongly believe it is a part of the education process missing from too many secondary schools. We differ in how to determine such qualification, however. I am not of the camp who ralliy behind the best test scores as a predictor of success, no matter what your race. Intelligence comes in many forms, hence holistic admissions.</p>
<p>Here’s an article from this week’s Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn’s student paper. It basically says if you don’t support affirmative action you’re living in an imaginary America.</p>