"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 6

Applying to College
481

<p>

</p>

<p>I have heard of cases where that happens, especially when the claimed heritage is American Indian. I don’t know how general that practice is. </p>

<p>P.S. No need to apologize for raising your question. You are very welcome to bring up questions about college admission issues in the College Admissions Forum. Questions about most ethnicity identification issues tend to be merged into the latest iteration of the FAQ & Discussion thread to spare posting the FAQ posts over and over again, and to reduce (although not eliminate, alas) flame wars on this contentious issue. </p>

<p>As before, good luck on your applications.</p>

482

<p>Shrinkrap , you are right, my statement was an oversimplification.</p>

<p>I still think that a child despite their skin color is much the same as mine. I feel that in an egalitarian society, I should not ( and have not ) make any such racial distinctions.</p>

<p>However, one could argue that african americans bring to the table the long sad and terrible legacy of slavery, which may have imbued them with heightened racial awareness and a striving to overcome obstacles. This could be the diversity we are speaking of that is necessary for colleges in choosing their student bodies.</p>

<p>However, to say that all we have to do to achieve this diversity for colleges is to choose by race alone is fallacious. There are many children out there of mixed ethnic and racial backgrounds…do africans of more uniform african ancestry have MORE diversity than those with more mixed heritage by that argument ? I hope you’re seeing the futility of making these racial distinctions.</p>

<p>My point is that this all important distinction cannot made as a result of the above inconsistent argument, because then, therefore, a kid with very little african heritage and thus, diversity,would still have an unfair advantage over other races in admissions. To be fair ,kids with even1% african ancestry should be declared URMs, for the sake of consistency. And I would say that I too would have african genes in me, as a result of “Mitochondrial Eve”, when humans first evolved in the plains of Africa…</p>

<p>When does a person have the right to declare URM status? How about those with only one ancestor, generations ago… are they eligible too ? Where do you draw the racial ( not cultural ) line?</p>

<p>As an example ( Latino in this case ) our daughter’s friend got into Chicago with C’s on her transcript, not in the top 10%,and flat 600 SATs despite tutoring,…and no, she wasn’t the author of a book. She had no musical , athletic, or leadership talents. However, her surname name was Hispanic, and she stated she was Latino on the application. Now, her mother is half Korean, and Half caucasian-american, and her father is half german and half cuban…but cuban in the sense that his father was from Spain and emigrated to Cuba in the 50s. Actually, I can’t see how these parents could have allowed her to attend this school, under such blatantly false circumstances. However, under the above arguments for racial diversity, she should be granted admission.</p>

483

<p>Who has seen Avatar? I suppose it deserves it’s own thread, but reminds me of this one, And “District 9”? Both seem to have in common the idea of LOOKING different, but maybe it’s just me.</p>

484

<p>If the movie has some theme about intelligent beings getting along even if they don’t all look the same, that would be a movie worth seeing.</p>

485

<p>Ok so AA prevents asian americans from going to HYP, but not getting in there isn’t the end of the world guys.</p>

<p>I’m sure all the people who were rejected/deferred at HYP are going to grow up to be successful people no matter what. </p>

<p>and also if you plan to go to graduate school, no one gives a damn at the end of the day where you went to for undergrad.</p>

486

<p>^^ this isn’t about whining, or complaining if you read carefully, it’s about whether something is right or wrong to do. There’s a big difference. </p>

<p>…Listen, I’m sure everyone becomes successful in their own way, save the lecture, thanks.</p>

487

<p>[Why</a> I Care about This Issue](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506785-post8.html]Why”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506785-post8.html)</p>

488

<p>sorry im confused so race isnt a large factor ? over the past few years the students of color with lower scores tend to get into the top schools when the white kids dont get in & they have really high scores and aamzing grades . so is that not true ?</p>

489

<p>

</p>

<p>Self-reported Asian population @ Harvard = ~13%
Self-reported Asian population @ Princeton = ~13%
Self-reported Asian population @ Yale = ~14%</p>

<p>Some other random Ivies:
@ Columbia, ~ 12%
@ Cornell, ~ 17%
@ Brown, ~ 16%</p>

<p>Other Elites:
@ MIT, ~ 25%
@ CalTech, ~ 40%
@ Berkeley, ~ 42%
@ Stanford, ~ 23%</p>

<p>Some random other reach schools:
@ UCLA ~ 45%
@ UC San Diego ~ 50%</p>

490

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not clear whether or not applicant race is a large factor at most colleges. By law it is not at all a factor at some state universities. Not indicating a race on the federally regulated forms (by which colleges are required to ask, but applicants are not required to tell) still lets [lots</a> of “race unknown” students get into lots of good colleges](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506721-post4.html]lots”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063506721-post4.html).</p>

491

<p>@TA</p>

<p>I read your “why I care about this issue.”</p>

<p>I completely agree–what’s happened in the past with regard to race relations was atrocious. We should be ashamed of how our ancestors treated on another.</p>

<p>However, I believe that the only way to create a post-racial society is the complete abandonment of racial and ethnic recognition. Not to say we shouldn’t celebrate cultural traditions, of course (I like sushi/pizza/jazz/etc as much as anyone else), but to associate an affinity for such traditions with the accident of birth is absurd and racist. So, with none of these cultural meanings attached to race, does affirmative action have a leg to stand on? I would say not.</p>

<p>I think that colleges can and should create diversity–but only diversity of interest, diversity that MATTERS. I think that we should set lower acceptance standards for students of a demonstrable disadvantage, such as socioeconomic status, but to use race as shorthand for such demonstrable disadvantages is racist.</p>

<p>Also, I think there is merit in valuing test scores and statistics. Surely, holistic admissions are important, but the objectivity of numbers can be very valuable and can say a lot more than a human judge sometimes. I think GPA/rank/SAT should play a considerable role in college admissions, though obviously not the full role.</p>

492

<p>

</p>

<p>So, your argument is that Asians should end up in the same place career-wise whether or not they go to an ivy? In other words, if the destination is the same who cares how you get there.</p>

493

<p>

</p>

<p>I firmly believe that colleges shouldn’t (and don’t) create “lower acceptance standards.” That plays in part because in the elite schools’ current systems there aren’t standards at all, and I see no reason to implement any or to “lower” them for any group. Rather, I prefer that colleges look at students as a whole package and judge how well they’ve done not based on the achievements of others but on their own. Say a student was homeless through portions of high school, but has a 3.7 on a fairly tough courseload anyways. A cushy upper-income student with a 4.0 on the same courseload also applies. Is the homeless student held to a “lower standard?” No, I would argue that the standard is actually much higher on a socioeconomic basis. If this were the right thread for it, I would argue that low-income students would be held to the “highest standard” of all.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I think they already play a pretty big role, but I would never advocate for them to become MORE important.</p>

494

<p>

</p>

<p>I think we both want the same thing here, it’s just a matter of semantics. I’m sorry if using the phrase “lower acceptance standards” is offensive to you, but I think it is fair to use those words to describe a situation where less is expected due to disadvantage. Holding all other things constant, the standards are numerically lower for the homeless student. But certainly, to require less of someone with such a disadvantage is completely fair.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course not, I was just respectfully disagreeing with what I saw as your calls to radically minimize their consideration. I think that there are and will always be many other factors involved besides the numbers, but we do need at a base level something to indicate how prepared and talented a student really is.</p>

495

<p>

</p>

<p>I understand what you’re saying, but I think I miscommunicated. I’m saying that less isn’t required for someone at a disadvantage. I would certainly say that a homeless student, or any disadvantaged student, puts in MORE effort to achieve something achieved by minimal effort for an advantaged or average student. For example, for a low-income student to even have extracurricular activities, he or she has to dedicate five or ten hours per week on top of twenty to forty hours per week of work (depending largely, of course, on specific circumstances - oddly, I’ve met some low-income students who don’t work at all). So there’s 30 hours per week, easily, that the student isn’t putting into homework or school or any of his or her other responsibilities. A middle or upper income student may have more ECs but no job. Is it fair to say, then, that the lower income student is held to a lesser standard? It’s easy to see that they’re each putting in the same amount of work (although as a low-income student advocate, I would say the low-income student is possibly working harder), but if the low-income student has fewer hours at his or her ECs, is that a lower standard?</p>

<p>As for numerical standards, we can look at the GPA. If a low-income and a middle or upper income student are taking an equal courseload, and the low-income student gets a 3.8 instead of a 4.0 after 8 hours of work and 2 hours of chores at night, has that student put in less work than the middle or upper-income student who gets a 4.0 but has, at worst, a few hours of afternoon responsibility? I guess you could certainly argue that the number 3.8 is lower than a 4.0. But I wouldn’t say that somehow the low-income student is held to a lower standard.</p>

<p>The term lower acceptance standards isn’t offensive to me, it’s just completely wrong. Yes, I am a low-income student. But that doesn’t mean I can waltz into a top school with a 3.5 GPA - and remarkably few do, low-income or not. I’m still expected to have an A average, as are all middle and upper-income students. So how am I held to a lower acceptance standard? I’m still expected to have a good to excellent SAT score (I would argue, however, that if there is a “floor” it is something like 2000 rather than the famed 2200 that gets thrown around a lot), no matter what circumstances I face. So how are the admissions standards lower? That’s all I’m saying. There aren’t lower admission standards for low-income students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t realize had I called to radically minimize their consideration. I just don’t see a base level as necessary - and if so, then let each college decide, and let it be fluid at best. There are plenty of open admissions programs, or programs with specific admissions requirements in mind. When you apply for a job, a base level is often something like “experience” or “bachelor’s degree” and little more.</p>

496

<p>

</p>

<p>I guess I would quantify achievement on a metaphorical scale. Let’s say the average student at a top university put in 80 units of achievement, but the low income or disadvantaged student put in only 60. While it seems like the first student has done more, they started at 0, whereas the the LI or DA student started at -20. So in reality, both students put in the same net effort, one just had a head start. Hopefully that clears some things up.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>see above</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not saying these standards currently exist, I’m just proposing them as an alternative to the current affirmative action policies (which you may deny, but I think statistical evidence pretty solidly backs up, no matter how much you may dislike the prospect).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, radical is a subjective term, and so I shouldn’t have used it in the first place. It doesn’t matter if it was radical or not. I agree–let each college decide, but we’re discussing our own opinions of what we think the colleges should do, not whether or not these actions should be mandated. I think the central problem with such fluidity is opacity, and, of course, it is no college’s responsibility to us to be completely transparent, but to maintain my, and many others’, respect for an institution, it is expected that there would be some concrete rationale surrounding their approach to admissions.</p>

497

<p>

</p>

<p>A far, far better explanation than my many rambling examples.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Fair enough. I don’t deny that affirmative action exists. I do, however, deny that the URMs who do go to top schools (or any school, for that matter) are “unqualified” or even “less qualified.” And I do deny that it has as big an influence as some people on CC seem to think it has. What I’m trying to say is that statistical evidence doesn’t back it up, because it isn’t about statistics. Is the system unfairly opaque? That may be the case, but it’s even more an argument that this isn’t about statistics. It’s like you said - one kid might be a 60 and the other might be an 80, but who knows where that 60 started out? That’s why I especially hate people who say “well I know a Hispanic girl who got in with blah blah blah” when there’s really no knowing what’s on her plate or what she has done. I can’t look at a white kid and say he got rejected because of this or that, either.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is where we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. I don’t see where colleges haven’t laid out pretty concrete admissions standards in their mission statements, but we may have a different definition of concrete. It’s clearly stated that colleges want high-achieving students with something more - a passion, an ability to overcome obstacles, sheer talent elsewhere, etc. And, it’s usually stated that because there are so many applicants who are perfectly capable of doing the work and forming a great class, the process has an arbitrary element.</p>

498

<p>Again, the basic problem in many of the pro-AA arguments is that it equates URMs with lower income students. In our kids’ former HS, URMs came from the same social strata, with one even having a physician for a parent. The anecdotal evidence based on where they were accepted suggests that colleges are more interested in playing the numbers game in demonstrating diversity based on race and not because of all the extenuating circumstances that have been listed for “fairly” choosing a URM with worse quantifiable stats.</p>

499

<p>^
Exactly, socio-economic affirmative action wouldn’t help increase racial diversity on college campuses, which is pretty much the goal of the current system. </p>

<p>Thus, it is unlikely it is going to be adopted.</p>

500

<p>^
Exactly, socio-economic affirmative action wouldn’t help increase racial diversity on college campuses, which is pretty much the goal of the current system. </p>

<p>Thus, it is unlikely it is going to be adopted.</p>