"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 6

Applying to College
401

<p>Firstly, it’s important to recognize the purpose of this post. Although I am against Affirmative Action, I strongly support minorities who have, do, or will attend colleges or universities. Because of that, this post may seem pro-Affirmative Action as the achievements of minorities are often limited to the scope of Affirmative Action when that is not the case. The purpose of this post is not to argue one way or the other – with the exception of the support of the minorities attending the universities and colleges – but instead to clear up misconceptions on each side of the debate (admittedly, however, I have met or heard of remarkably few supporters of Affirmative Action in its current state). While there are many, many excellent arguments against Affirmative Action, there are many arguments thrown out there that are based on completely incorrect assumptions or foundations.</p>

<p>I’m 100% positive this thread will dissolve into an Affirmative Action debate; hopefully we can fight to clear up misconceptions as well. Instead of railing against Affirmative Action or affirming some of these misconceptions, let’s consider where the Affirmative Action debate goes wrong. I’m also 50% positive that this thread will get merged to “Race in College Admissions” via tokenadult or another moderator, but I’d prefer that it didn’t. I’ll present the misconceptions in no particular order. These are not arguments one way or another, except with respect to minorities in higher education.</p>

<p>EDIT: I’m going to make 10 posts, and I’d strongly prefer that if you see this thread before all ten posts are made, you NOT comment.</p>

402

<ol>
<li> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS MEANT TO CORRECT ____<em>. There is the misconception on both sides that Affirmative Action is meant to correct something other than racial balance. To understand this, we first have to look at what Affirmative Action was and what it has become. Affirmative Action was an executive order ([Executive Order 11246 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Executive - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;Order_11246)) that officially and explicitly referred to race and other protected classes. When Affirmative Action was erected, racism, sexism, and a host of other isms in this country equated to the utmost discrimination. That means if you were black, you literally could not work somewhere. Therefore, Affirmative Action sought to eliminate that discrimination by forcing all federally funded programs and institutions to employ underrepresented groups wherever possible – including the legal use of quotas. Affirmative Action’s purpose was to put racial minorities and women into the working world. There have been dozens of changes to Affirmative Action over time. However, Affirmative Action is still largely in reference to the protected classes (race, sex, disability, etc.). Affirmative Action DOES NOT “correct for” socioeconomic status or past wrong-doing (in that, Affirmative Action was meant to circumvent outright racial discrimination and the fewer social opportunities presented to minorities, but NOT as an apologetic means – so Affirmative Action was meant to correct for past wrongs in that it elevated the status of minorities who were not socially mobile because of racial discrimination).</li>
</ol>

403

<ol>
<li> *AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS ILLEGAL/LEGAL.<a href=“Note,%20this%20post%20is%20not%20meant%20to%20address%20the%20constitutionality%20of%20Affirmative%20Action,%20which%20is%20murky%20at%20best%20in%20some%20practices%20in%20my%20opinion,%20but%20instead%20to%20consider%20the%20legal%20implications%20of%20Affirmative%20Action%20as%20they%20stand.”>/b</a> Affirmative Action is both legal and mandatory. It is mandatory that all programs and institutions that accept federal funds “to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin” ([KUMC</a> Equal Opportunity Office: Affirmative Action](<a href=“http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/aff.html#law]KUMC”>http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/aff.html#law)) . However, after reading number one, you should be confused by that statement. It is, in fact, misleading. Affirmative Action in its original and even current form explicitly states that race CAN be used, but only if it is not used negatively. That is, if two qualified people (notice that, under Executive Order 11246, only populations of QUALIFIED minorities and women were counted toward the now-obsolete quota system), a person most certainly can be chosen because he or she is a member of a minority. This is murky water at best. Either way, * Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is an extremely important development. Since then, quotas have been outlawed entirely. However, it was made legal that race COULD LEGALLY BE one of the factors of university admissions in the “compelling interest” (Justice Lewis Powell) of diversity. It could not be an overwhelming factor. In [Hopwood</a> v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas]Hopwood”>Hopwood v. Texas - Wikipedia), the court held that "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body…”</li>
</ol>

404

<ol>
<li> MINORITY ADMITS ARE NOT (AS) QUALIFIED AS NON-MINORITY ADMITS.</li>
</ol>

<p>First, we have to determine what makes an applicant “qualified” and “more qualified.” Opponents of Affirmative Action tend to use the fact (yes, the FACT, see <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf&lt;/a&gt; for a start) that on average, minority applicants have lower SAT scores than non-minority applicants. However, that is assuming that SAT scores are the measure that determines how qualified a student is. That is simply untrue. If it were true, for example, top schools would not reject any 2400-scoring applicants, as those students would be the “most qualified.” The use of the SAT score as a measure of qualification is, then, a fallacy. Another fallacy is the use of class rank or GPA as a measure of HOW qualified a student is. A black applicant with a class rank of, say, in the top 10% is considered “less qualified” than a white applicant with a class rank of, say, 5% (see <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale.html&lt;/a&gt;). But, such assumptions are often (but not always) made with no regard to the quality of the students’ high schools, the rigor of their courses in relation to the weighting system or lack thereof, the level of pursuing of the students’ interests, the students’ socioeconomic status, and so on and so forth. We’d have to consider if a 2250 who cured cancer is “less qualified” than a 2400 who was “merely” one of thousands of class presidents. So, numerical measurements are a poor yardstick for “how qualified” a student is.</p>

<p>Now that we know that we can hardly use numerical measurements as a means to determine who is “qualified” or “more qualified,” we have to ask how a top university fills a class at all. We can answer this question by looking at the colleges’ websites. Let’s use Yale ([What</a> Does Yale Look For? | Application to Yale College | Freshmen | Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/application/what.html]What”>http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/application/what.html)) and Stanford ([Our</a> Selection Process : Stanford University](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/index.html]Our”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/basics/selection/index.html)) as examples.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So, how do we determine who is “qualified” and who is “more qualified?” We don’t. Harvard has stated that almost all of the students who come through their application process are qualified. We can assume, then, that quantitatively, more qualified students are rejected than accepted. In the Yale thread linked awhile back, one student put it fairly well. I wouldn’t say the process is “completely unfair,” but it can certainly seem so.</p>

<p>

</p>

405

<ol>
<li> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROMOTES DIVERSITY. This misconception was partially addressed in number one. The defense for Affirmative Action is, in some circles, that Affirmative Action promotes diversity. This is true in a roundabout sense. Although there is plenty of racism present in the Affirmative Action debate, most reasonable people understand that race itself does not have any intrinsic value. However, there are many factors linked to race (sometimes strongly, sometimes tenuously) that DO contribute to diversity. This includes socioeconomic status, geographic location, linguistic heritage, etc. But, those elements of diversity are NOT race-based in and of themselves.</li>
</ol>

406

<ol>
<li> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEVALUES MINORITY ACHIEVEMENTS. This is a misconception that seemed to brew from nowhere. Affirmative Action is a program, not a school of thought. High-achieving people of any race are not diminished or bolstered by admission to a top college. That is, a 2400 is no less a 2400 whether a package is big or small. A 4.0 is no less or no more a 4.0 whether the student goes to Harvard or UConn. So, when a student is accepted (or rejected!) to a top college, that person’s achievements aren’t elevated. So to say that a minority student accepted to a top college is “devalued” because Affirmative Action exists is nonsense. HOWEVER, there are people who further that misconception. Some non-minorities, and even the occasional minority (Dbate), will question the admittance of a student to a top school if that student is a minority. This is because it is “perceived” that minorities are less qualified. The problem with this is RACISM (The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others, [racism:</a> Definition from Answers.com](<a href=“http://www.answers.com/topic/racism]racism:”>Answers about Racism)), not Affirmative Action. In the case of minorities questioning their own achievements because of AA, Wikipedia (not my favorite source, but I didn’t feel like linking all five of the sources they used) says “While a few studies claimed that affirmative action undermined the self-esteem of women and minorities,[5][6] more recent studies and public opinion polls have indicated that such is not that case[7][8][9].”</li>
</ol>

407

<ol>
<li> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HOLDS WHITE AND ASIAN STUDENTS TO A HIGHER STANDARD / THE BAR IS HIGHER FOR ASIAN OR WHITE STUDENTS. On the flip side, some say that Affirmative Action makes it more difficult for white or Asian students to get accepted to a top college or university. Again, the measure of difficulty is often measured by SAT score. However, in number three we already determined that SAT score is a poor yardstick for a measure of qualification. So why, then, do white and Asian students tend to have higher SAT scores, on average, within each individual top college, than (other) minority students? Firstly, as per <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, there are simply MORE high-scoring white and Asian students. (Now, why is that the case? For that we’d have to have a discussion about the “general culture” and conditions of each race, which would be another long discussion.) Secondly, it MAY be that the institutional niche (for every student fills an institutional niche when it comes to top colleges, as they admit they are accepting students who best form a class rather than simply the highest statistically-scoring students) most commonly filled by white or Asian students is that of the purely high-achieving student (every student, on PAPER, can’t contribute something new and exciting, after all). I personally believe that is the least viable explanation, as it in and of itself borders on racism. Thirdly, it could have something to do with background. That is, minority students are MORE LIKELY (but not necessarily - see any census/demographics information on income, like [Household</a> income in the United States - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States]Household”>Household income in the United States - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)) to come from low-income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds, which could be reflected in race (but remember that while socioeconomic status can be tenuously linked to race, it is NOT a race-based factor, and therefore is a pitfall of Affirmative Action rather than something Affirmative Action “corrects for”). Fourthly, it could simply be that the most “interesting” (because qualified is possibly the worst term to use) students to the adcoms have certain qualities, and those qualities are either a symptom of or a cause for high statistical achievements.</li>
</ol>

408

<ol>
<li> I/MY SON/MY DAUGHTER/MY NEIGHBOR DIDN’T GET IN BECAUSE OF A MINORITY / BECAUSE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Especially on CC but also elsewhere (see [The</a> Shifting Definitions of Merit in Admissions - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“The Shifting Definitions of Merit in Admissions - The New York Times”>The Shifting Definitions of Merit in Admissions - The New York Times)), some parents and students alike seem to think that they were rejected from a top school because they were white or Asian, or male or female, or whatever the case may be. Although the idea of a scapegoat is alluring, it is usually wrong - and it goes both ways (a black man doesn’t get a job, and it’s the same thing all over again). What did that student have to offer the university – and more importantly, was it different than what ten thousand other applicants had to offer the university? Acceptance to top colleges isn’t numeric. In fact, it’s so far from objective that there’s pretty much no point in trying to look at it objectively. Is there something wrong with the system? We’re welcomed to think so, but that doesn’t change the system – and that doesn’t mean we do or should have a say.</li>
</ol>

409

<ol>
<li> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MAKES THE APPLICATION PROCESS MORE FAIR / UNFAIR What would be a FAIR admissions process? Some people support a numerically-based admissions process, which I will admit I abhor. Is a numerically-based admissions process fair? The problem with this is that America is far, far from a meritocracy. Without even getting into that argument, is a numerically-based admissions process fair if, say, a student experiences a death in the family prior to the SAT? If some students can afford (and have time for) SAT testing and others don’t? Is numerically-based admissions fair if one student attends a competitive school and other attends an inner city school (thus misconstruing class rank and GPA)? Similarly, is a numerically-based admissions process fair if a student comes down with mono and misses six weeks of her junior year, or if another student has a poor immune system that causes a slightly lower GPA because of missed time? I don’t believe that any admissions process is fair, nor that there is a fair design (however, I’d be interested in what YOU may feel is a fair process).</li>
</ol>

410

<p>Now, let me conclude this monstrosity of a post. The problem with the opponents of Affirmative Action isn’t their basis (I believe they are completely correct), but rather than some of their arguments (and the arguments of supporters) are completely and utterly false. The arguments of Affirmative Action should be constitutional amendments, Supreme Court cases (Hopwell v. Texas comes to mind), and common sense. The arguments SHOULD NOT BE that the minorities are admitted despite being “unqualified” or “less qualified.” When we stand up against Affirmative Action, let’s do it with the FACTS in mind and the misconceptions aside. The whole face of the debate should be changed, from the words we use to the arguments we use.</p>

<p>Yes, probably too many of my sources came from Wikipedia. It happens. I’m not writing a research paper. However, for all but the articles on Affirmative Action itself (i.e., the actual article for Affirmative Action, as opposed to the Executive Order), I believe there is no reason not to use Wikipedia, at least as a starting point.</p>

<p>Personally, I don’t think holistic admissions should be abolished. I believe that colleges should feel free to create a diverse incoming class – I know that’s why top colleges were such a big draw for me (aside from financial aid). I do believe, if it even exists, that race-based preference policies should be abolished because race does not add anything of intrinsic value to a class. However, “preference” based on gender, socioeconomic status, background, linguistic heritage, and geographic location – what have you – in my opinion should continue to exist. I do dispute the term or concept of preference, but I’ll use it in the sense that I’d rather colleges accept students that have something unique or important to the college rather than those students who are merely the “most statistically qualified.” Unlike some, I do not believe the sole purpose of attending college is to get good grades and a good job. I believe that at least half of all the learning done at college will be a result of my peers, and I intend to make as full a use of a diverse student body as I can.</p>

411

<p>Here’s a follow-up article considering the admittance of the quadruplets to Yale.</p>

<p>[Your</a> Comments on the Quadruplets Admitted to Yale - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Your Comments on the Quadruplets Admitted to Yale - The New York Times”>Your Comments on the Quadruplets Admitted to Yale - The New York Times)</p>

<p>I felt this comment was particularly of interest. Affirmative Action, I believe, is racial discrimination. Unfortunately, some of the opponents of Affirmative Action (and, it appears, a hopefully disproportionate number on this board) are far more racist than the program at hand.</p>

<p>

</p>

412

<p>If it is such a common perception, I don’t know why colleges haven’t said anything about it yet.</p>

413

<p>A thousand years ago or so, almost all intelligent people thought the sun orbited the Earth.</p>

<p>Oops.</p>

414

<p>applicannot, that WAS a thousand years ago. Perhaps you would care to update.</p>

415

<p>^ ^ </p>

<p>Be sure to take history of science if you end up enrolling at Stanford.</p>

416

<p>I’m a first generation immigrant, Canadian citizen, came here when I was 3 yrs. old, originally from a African nation. I’m applying for Graduate school at multiple Ivy league universities in the US and want to know if I’m a URM, or if these under represented minorities have to be American only?</p>

<p>Plus, I don’t think anybody from my original country has ever been to the Ivies I applied to (!).</p>

417

<p>are you… black?</p>

<p>then, yeah, of course. But if you are white, I’m not sure</p>

418

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t see any statement of your United States residency status. If you are a permanent resident (“green card holder”), you get reported by colleges to the federal government as fitting into whatever “race” group you self-report. If you are not a permanent resident, you are an international student, which is a different category. </p>

<p>The specific country you came from may be of interest as a diversity factor at some colleges. What could you tell classmates about that country that they couldn’t learn by reading books and magazines while in the United States? </p>

<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>

419

<p>Just curious, whats the original country?</p>

420

<p>The thread “Setting the Record Straight - Affirmative Action” has been merged into the main FAQ thread for the usual reasons. It may get more attention this way anyhow.</p>