<p>Our country prides itself on equality, but it that’s about as far as it goes. There is no equality. Stop dreaming.
Which kids can’t go to those magnet schools? Check the URM popluation of Stuyvesant, Bronx High school of Science, they are well represented. Even if urms are not represented in elite schools, they should try the way all the preceding minorities had to, the Irish, the Jews, …pure hard work, through generations of struggle… you can’t short circuit the system by immediately putting the last first…all successful ethnic and religious groups before URMs had to go through the crucible, unfair as it was. Don’t like the fact that there aren’t AP courses in the URM neighborhoods? Why not DO something about it? In this country, we have superstars who are people of color. But they hand out crumbs to the urban poor. Tiger is a billion dollar industry. Why couldn’t he donate 50% of his earnings to get those APs, better yet, donate $$ to start maybe 10 graduate schools that admit predominantly URMs, improve all HS learning programs in the ghettos… if the gov’t isn’t doing enough, why can’t URMs do it on their own dime…Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan…and I mean something significant…rather than live it up in those gated communities…? Ever heard of the Albert Einstein School of Medicine, or Mount Sinai? Who started them, on whose dime, and why?</p>
<p>Wealth priviledges =/= white priviledges. They are not equatable. One can be a wealthy person, and still have to deal with setbacks for being an URM and one can be a poor white person and still have to deal with setbacks for being poor.</p>
<p>I say priviledges (doubtfully spelling it) because being under-represented implies that there is a larger, more represented both in law/politics, media AND in population race (caucasian). Representation garners priviledges of at least being in public view… </p>
<p>I actually don’t want to argue that point. I’m just saying you can be rich and still have to deal with racist people.</p>
<p>Striving for diversity by forcing it down society’s throat ( and mine ) is not going to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly the problem. Our system is NOT a meritocracy. I frankly can’t see ANY evidence that it is a meritocracy whatsoever. Why doesn’t Tiger donate half is income to low-income neighborhoods? Why don’t you? Because you aren’t a billionnare? Where’s the cut off? Everyone on here has disposable income, since clearly we are all using the internet. What about white superstars? Should they give money to low-income neighborhoods? What if that neighborhood is predominantly black or hispanic? Are they not responsible in that situation?</p>
<p>And centuries of struggle? Excuse me? So majorities have been oppressing people for thousands of years, making it difficult to escape racism. It has happened for thousands of years, so suddenly it’s okay? It’s perfectly fine to say to the blacks and Hispanics and Asians well, whites are on top, you have to fight your way through the crowd like everyone else did. That’s possibly the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard. You know what else existed for thousands of years? Slavery. Unless you want to argue the merits of slavery, I think I’ve made my point.</p>
<p>I don’t support Affirmative Action, but I DO support minorities, and I DO believe that no matter how unfair it seems, private colleges are allowed to choose whomever they want for their classes. As a low-income student, I don’t rail against need-aware institutions. Yeah, it SUCKS. But I have alternatives. I don’t like need-awareness, so I either ignored those schools or got over it. You’re welcome to attend a school that judges solely on academics.</p>
<p>GBJ: my “80%” is solely a guess. It could well be 95%. I dunno.</p>
<p>However, back to the discussion. Don’t you find it ironic that the so-called “top 25” colleges almost universally practice holistic admissions – where they actively craft the incoming classes – and not use solely metrics to decide. Why is it that society grants them this prestige (and confirms it by ever-increasing applications) despite their manipulation? Besides historical resources, I posit that a large part of their attractiveness to students, faculty and employers is directly related to the composition of their student body.</p>
<p>The metrics-only colleges don’t appear in the upper tier rankings. One then argues that the upper tier schools somehow should be compelled to alter their essence? To accomplish what?</p>
<p>While no one enjoys turning away qualified applicants, these institutions have limited space.</p>
<p>Also, HYPSM graduates about 12000 students a year. I don’t think this is some conspiracy to “jam diversity down the throats” of American society.</p>
<p>How about this scenario. Let’s say that Princeton, for the last few years, didn’t anticipate how many of its freshmen decided to major in the hard sciences. What occurred is that specific departments will become overextended. Following faculty advisement who fear the quality of education would diminish, the admissions office begins to implement a directive where they try to supress the number of potential science majors for the next few years. Isn’t this within the ken of the college?</p>
<p>The admissions dean for my college came to town a few years ago. He said that every subgroup (legacies, athletes, development kids, rural, urban, international, male/female, ethnicities, jews/gentiles, artists, musicians, actors, science kids, LGBT, you name it) and their supporters argue for more admitted slots. His balancing act was to determine how to still bring in an incoming class. For every subgroup A admitted, subgroup B lost a spot. </p>
<p>I can’t say I envied that process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have [asked</a> in this thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506871-post12.html]asked”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506871-post12.html) before what “underrepresented” is supposed to mean, as there doesn’t seem to be any standard definition of that term subscribed to by all colleges. Your post has been merged into the main FAQ and discussion thread on this subject because this issue continues to evoke a lot of controversy. </p>
<p>Good luck in your college applications.</p>
<p>GoBlueJays daughter got into Columbia ED. I don’t think she is suffering too much.</p>
<p>Generally, if nonselective American universities practice holistic admissions at all, then it is done at a much less intensive level than selective universities. For example, the University of Georgia only asks regular decision applicants to write an essay and solicit letters of recommendation; they wave those additional requirements for early action applicants.</p>
<p>I am not against holistic admissions, but I am against the use of racial classification as a factor in college admissions, and I don’t believe that racial classification is the factor that determines whether a process is holistic. I have three central positions on this issue:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Regarding private universities, they can use racial classification if they like, but in exchange, they should forfeit access to federal funding. If having a so-called “racially diverse” class is so important to them, why don’t they fund it out of their endowments?</p></li>
<li><p>Racial preferences are not necessary to achieve diversity, and ending racial preferences does not mean instituting “metrics only” admissions. There is no reason why a race-blind admissions process cannot continue to ask applicants to write essays, list extracurriculars, solicit recommendations, demonstrate leadership, and so forth.</p></li>
<li><p>“If race is the problem, then race is the solution” is a fundamentally flawed mentality. By continuing to put racial classification in the spotlight and deeming it important, we will never advance to a stage where it is irrelevant. The only logical way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Nobody ever said it would be quick or easy. But if you stop using it and making such a big deal out of it, eventually, it’ll die.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Applicanot, I say Tiger should start universities, medical schools, I didn’t suggest he support lo income neighborhoods. You missed my point. Bloomberg has started two schools. Tiger or Oprah can’t do the same? </p>
<p>Yes, my D did get in , we thank the admissions committee,but that doesn’t mean I don’t speak out against this. You should see the mountain of email advising me that she was a long shot because of her demographics…meanwhile, URMs are posting some awful numbers up there and trumpeting their acceptances…MY first D didn’t get in to U Chic, while another girl, one whom she saw every day in her classes, who was a C student, waltzed right on it. Until that happens to you, you don’t really know the effects. This girl was the most materialistic obnoxious superficial social butterfly there was…</p>
<p>I believe too that we should make this process more fair…this just isn’t the way to do it.</p>
<p>And this materialistic obnoxious superficial social butterfly was a URM? </p>
<p>Point #2: I’ve been reading many of the Columbia ED acceptances, some from URM’s with very impressive accomplishments. Just FYI: scores ain’t everything. They do not, from the college’s point of view, determine gradients of qualification. The range of scores determines ability to do the work. Beyond that, other accomplishments in, but especially outside of, the high school environment, are indicators of how motivated for success the student will continue to be when Daddy, Mommy, and high school authorities aren’t breathing over them 24/7.</p>
<p>Yes, the social butterfly, materialistic and spoiled, is a UChic URM.</p>
<p>My point is that I have a bunch of emails and notes that everyone has written that my D had an uphill battle. I could quote some of those em’s , but I want to protect privacy.of the writers, who are high up in the alumni/ admissions committee network…they were super nice to me, bTW, just advising me that our demographics worked against us…but I’ll have to really hand it to Columbia, they saw past all that… I feel that this is the perfect university for my D…they really see way past “demographics”…so I cannot second guess their URM admits…but I have to say that in general, CU notwithstanding, URMs are not doing themselves, nor their country a service.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, thank you for your eloquence. I couldn’ta said it better m’self ! I especially like the point about using their own private endowments, economics often will dictate behaviour.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is entirely the point. They do see “past all that,” positively & negatively. It’s all about context. All non-URM’s have an uphill battle – because of demographics, because of financial profiles, because of (mostly educated) parents. In that regard (only), your D is hardly different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much money do YOU make per year? Do you donate a huge portion of it? It’s not the individual’s problem - should they contribute? I think so, but they shouldn’t be EXPECTED to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So how much do you really know about this girl - or any of the minority students who supposedly got in despite “awful numbers?” What if a student (of any ethnicity) got a 1900 on the SAT but had published novels in her spare time? Would YOU know that? What if they got a 1900 on the SAT but had spent the first 10 years of life homeless? The fact of the matter is, even with students at school - and especially on the internet - we don’t know what the background information is. What if a 2400 got in but only because he was propped up by mommy and daddy through the process? What if a 4.0 got in but she cheated her way through every exam? Would we question those acceptances?</p>
<p>I agree with fabrizio on most points. However, I don’t think race-blind admissions will ever exist. The fact of the matter is that that’s one step toward metrics-only admissions. I don’t necessarily agree with race as an admissions factor, but here’s the thing. Socioeconomic status IS a factor at some schools - but that puts some students at a “disadvantage” (supposedly). So when does admissions become socioeconomic status blind? What about gender blind? Where does it end?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. What do you consider a fair process?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, you’re wrong. I DO know the effects. As an African American, I have to deal with people like you constantly. I have to deal with the questions and the thoughts and the second-guessing about how I got into a near-Ivy school. I have to have people look at me and think oh, she only got in because she’s black, or oh, she’s not qualified because she only has a 2250. It’s a racism thing: some people think that I must be “under qualified” because I am a black applicant. I get the same thing in the form of elitism every day. I’m JUST a cashier at the grocery store, so I can’t possibly be very smart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you saying that by attending an institution of higher education, I’m doing the country a disservice?</p>
<p>epiphany, there are likely many facets to this argument. One would be that too many kids slip past the radar of the adcom, and claim they’re URMs, when it’s only a small association to an URM… these kids have had the same financial /educational advantages that my D had, if not more… this one kid I’m talking about has an investment banker for a Dad…but her name had Latino origins…her paternal grandfather was Cuban, but really european spanish living in cuba…and I suspect many schools don’t verify the claims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why can’t race-blind admissions ever exist? It already exists in the public university systems of California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska through voter initiatives. Our neighbor to the north does not ask applicants to disclose racial classification, and they seem to be doing fine without it.</p>
<p>I graduated from a high school where over one-third of the student body was eligible for free lunch. I am totally fine with socioeconomic preferences. If you’re actually helping people who are poor, I’m all for that. What I am not for, however, is helping people who had the means to send their children to private test preparation and high-quality schooling. Though socioeconomic disadvantage is often invoked as a justification for racial preferences, what you actually get with racial preferences are wealthy “underrepresented” minorities. You’re far more likely to get a doctor’s daughter than single mother on welfare’s daughter. And what’s more, you’re most likely to end up with the [children</a> of immigrants](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]children”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black), people who are essentially like me, except their parents came from Nigeria instead of China.</p>
<p>If like [Lee</a> Bollinger](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html]Lee”>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/education/24AFFI.final.html), you don’t care where blacks come from as long as they’re on campus, then racial preferences are fine. But if you actually want to help poor students who were genuinely disadvantaged, then racial preferences are not fine, but socioeconomic preferences might be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, European Spanish is still considered Hispanic. And you’re arguing the wrong problem. Affirmative Action, and thus the term AA, is purely racial - it is NOT trying to make up for a lack of socioeconomic diversity. It’s not about their backgrounds, it is literally and wholly about race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to say it couldn’t exist, but rather than it could be a gateway to an admissions process I don’t like. State schools, ESPECIALLY the California system, are extremely numbers-based. I definitely don’t want a numbers-based system. Now, I would like to see a race-blind admissions policy, but to an extent. Is it race-blind because of complaints? If that’s the case, then we mightaswell do away with considering gender and socioeconomic status - since the same complaints exist in those spheres, merely transplanted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood. I meant the two as separate examples. I do not think Affirmative Action is meant to, even in practice, support low-income students.</p>
<p>“ven if urms are not represented in elite schools, they should try the way all the preceding minorities had to, the Irish, the Jews, …pure hard work, through generations of struggle… you can’t short circuit the system by immediately putting the last first…”</p>
<p>African Americans put in hundreds of years of unpaid labor on plantations. We were here before many of the people in the racial majority were here. Unfortunately, we didn’t have equal opportunities for education, jobs, etc. – legally – until 1964.</p>
<p>It displays ignorance of history to talk about African Americans’ not struggling over generations as is the case of other groups here.</p>
<p>The same is true of Native Americans, who were here before anyone else was. They certainly struggled to overcome genocide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that is another long discussion. However, you make my point for me, there is a hint of uncertainty on your part as well. If we just admit that the current process ( admirable in its aim, lacking in its efficacy ) is unworkable, that is a first step towards rectifiying the problem.</p>
<p>Nah, I already said the process as it stands is not ideal. However, I would say there is no such thing as a fair system. That’s why I wanted to hear your thoughts - and the thoughts of others if they would like to chime in. What would make the college admission system fair?</p>