"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 7

Applying to College
181

<p>quoting everybody would be a monumental task, so I’ll try to remember to reply to everyone here:</p>

<p>@ whoever said that I don’t know what its like because im probably chiming it off in the suburbs:</p>

<p>I am not black. I’m not even hispanic, contrary to what my username may suggest. However, I come from a single-income household of 4, with that parent making <50k.</p>

<p>So yea, I know what it’s like.</p>

<p>@ whoever said that it should be a combination of ethnicity and socioeconomic:</p>

<p>Why both? Why not just socioeconomic? Romulus’s (and others’) argument(s) in favor of AA seem to be grounded on that aspect. Why does ethnicityhave to play a role? “Because they have been discriminated against in the past.” What’s another reason? Can you name one?</p>

<p>This isn’t pertinent to racial AA but I remember reading about Johnson v Transportation Agency of Santa Clara, California.
The Supreme Court upheld a firm’s policy of taking into consideration an applicant’s sex. At the time, Justice Brennan concluded that it did not “create an absolute barrier” to men. But it does(and did) create a barrier. By hiring less-qualified women, the firm did not have as many slots open for men(not being sexist or saying that women are as a whole underqualified–just saying that some women were hired despite being underqualified).</p>

<p>@ whoever brought up Malcolm Gladwell</p>

<p>Bravo. I remember reading *Getting In<a href=“which%20I%20think%20is%20the%20piece%20you’re%20referring%20to”>/I</a> a few years ago. I think it sets an excellent precedent for “overrepresented” “majorities.”</p>

<p>Romulus has yet to address my point rebutting his previous point stating that “if you’re an Asian who happened to be like every other Asian, then you will get rejected.”</p>

<p>Again, if that were the case(presuming that there is a mold), there would be absolutely no Asians whatsoever at any of the schools. Tomorrow, it will be a bad thing to have 4.0 + 2400. “No, no, no mom, I have to bomb a few questions on the SATs on purpose just so that I’m different than ‘all the other Asians.’”</p>

<p>@Romulus #177:</p>

<p>Yes, it may be true that people are generally more comfortable around people who ‘look like them’ because they will be more accepting and understanding of them.</p>

<p>But it is not always true. To cite a personal example, I remember waiting for the bus one afternoon. In my immediate vicinity were two people: one of my own race, and another of a different race. The
one of my own race was farther away. A third person, also of my own race, approached the bus stop’s time table, glanced at the person of a different race(who was the first in line and therefore the closest to the timetable) and opened her mouth as if she were about to ask a question. She immediately closed it, and walked a bit down the line to ask the person of her own race a question.</p>

<p>To keep a long story short, the person of a different race was incensed and censured the inquiring woman for being more comfortable with her own race.</p>

<p>What’s wrong with that? People should be allowed to choose, right? Wrong. By having an inherent prejudice in favor of members of their own race, people make it harder for themselves to open up to members of other ethnicities.</p>

<p>I am not one of those people. 90% of my “circle” is comprised of people of other races. It bothers me when I see huge herds of people homogeneous in skin color roaming around. So yes, people should have a choice in deciding whom to mingle with. The problem is that race plays a bigger role–much bigger-than it should.</p>

<p>Same for college admissions. After the “because my ancestors were discriminated against” argument subsided, Romulus jumped to “that colleges want greater diversity.”</p>

<p>In that sense, I agree with fabrizio in saying that all that needs to be done is to eliminate discriminatory bars. I repeat: it is simply not fair to grant an URM an advantage just because he or she is an URM. </p>

<p>If a black applicant has stats on par with “majority applicants,” then by all means admit him. Yea, people are more than numbers, but that holds true for everybody. As shocking as it may sound, majority applicants are also more than their numbers.</p>

182

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I support it. Most everybody who is at a place like Harvard can complete the coursework and was obviously a spectacular applicant. Sub-par or simply average students don’t get in, and while there are differences between the statistics (AGAIN, STATISTICS, NOT INTANGIBLES) of applicants from different races, students aren’t going to be walking around with the idea that the Native American or Black students are inferior. Minority students are qualified to be there.</p>

<p>And as for why I believe they should receive a (ever so slight) boost in admissions: students want to be a part of a diverse community, they don’t want to be a part of a student body that is homogeneous. Many of those benefited by AA do bring their cultural traditions to the school, making the school a more diverse/intellectual place to be. This cultural diversity won’t be brought by a member of the lower class who is like their middle-class and upper-class counterparts.</p>

<p>And you may say “WELL NOT ALL THOSE BENEFITED BY AA ARE AKTUALLY TIED TO THEIR CULTURE.” Yet, most are.</p>

183

<p>

</p>

<p>Who are they then? What proof do you have? What I can see that is that most blacks at Duke came from above $100k and in general, they were given lower scores overall by the Duke admissions faculty, suggesting some use of AA. And if culture is so important, why not reach out to more Asian students? Why allow white culture to have such a representation?</p>

184

<p>Re 182</p>

<p>If “ALL people who are accepted to amazing colleges get in on their own merit,” then what is the point of racial preferences? There would be no need for them whatsoever.</p>

<p>Supporters of racial preferences often argue that the boost is “ever so slight.” They would have others believe that the boost is the equivalent of going from a 98 to a 99. It’s an A either way, so the boost is insignificant and not worth talking about.</p>

<p>Yet, their attitudes change drastically when racial preferences are challenged, for example through ballot initiatives. All of a sudden, racial preferences become a sacred idol that cannot be taken away, or else!</p>

<p>It then becomes clear: sure, the boost is akin to one point on an exam, but it’s not the difference between a 98 and a 99; it’s the difference between a 69 and a 70.</p>

<p>I repeat that there is no evidence that eliminating racial preferences will produce “homogeneous” campuses.</p>

185

<p>

</p>

<p>Preferences aren’t completely about numbers. Members of this site tend to try to compress everything into numbers, but life doesn’t work like that.</p>

<p>And anyway, I never said it wasn’t worth talking about. It’s a valid (yet trite) topic of discussion. I support it, as I believe that being a member of a diverse campus will enhance students. So, if a college decides to choose a Native American or Black student who got a 1970 on his SAT but was impressive in every other way over a White student with higher test scores who would not bring anything unique to campus, so be it. I would most definitely be angered if AA was done away with.</p>

186

<p>

</p>

<p>That… just doesn’t follow. For instance, I have very little concern for how physically attractive a girl is. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with the people who think males considering attractiveness at all is an evil sexist plot.</p>

187

<p>

</p>

<p>Is there such a student? Isn’t every human individual of any race unique in some way?</p>

188

<p>Sure, everyone has some unique characteristics, but a White, upper-middle class a capella singing boy who was a member of every National Honor Society at his school would not bring something to campus that wouldn’t have already been brought by many, many others.</p>

189

<p>How true is it that even people so far from of the background of the typical Ivy League student does bring something from his background? It would be nice to see some surveys on this. However, in one very narrow case, in a book about an inner city black student who was definitely accepted to Brown because of AA (not that it was a bad thing), I read about all the new things he discovered about the middle-class world at Brown, but it seemed like no one particularly cared about his background, whether it was to discriminate against him or to learn something from the “diversity” he brought.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What about his quirky love for the accordion or Bulgarian folk music? What about his interest in south Indian history? Or just his wonderful sense of humor? Do those not count?</p>

<p>I remember someone at mostly-white Dartmouth talking about how “everyone is so unique here” and gave examples of his/her eccentric dormmates. Did that person not know what s/he was talking about?</p>

190

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes he or she is.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>what about a white student with higher test scores who, is just as impressive in every other category?</p>

<p>It bothers me when people make comparisons in the way that you did. “Person 1 may not have alot of A, but he or she has alot of B. Person 2 may have the A, but he or she must be lacking in B!” Why can’t person 2 have both?</p>

<p>One spot left, a native american/black vs a white. a 1950 vs a 2350. Every other variable is the same for both applicants.</p>

<p>Whom would you choose?</p>

<p>I would choose the white applicant, and do not get me wrong because I have just as much respect for African Americans and Native Americans as anyone else on this forum. However, if the white applicant were not deficient in any aspect, then I would choose him.</p>

<p>The white applicant had no control over his race/ethnicity, so why should it be held against him?</p>

<p>“It’s not being held against him, nobody is stealing anybody’s seat.”
No, but for every applicant from pool A admitted, there is one less spot open for applicants of pool B. Obviously, it is only one big pool but you get the idea.</p>

<p>I never bought the belief that colleges are after people with quirky mannerisms. They are after stellar students, and quirky mannerisms may or may not help. An accordion enthusiast with a 4.0 2350 may have an advantage over a 4.0 2350 who doesn’t play it, but only in that regard. </p>

<p>Colleges should not lower the bar just because someone plays the accordion. Otherwise, why go to school anymore? Why not just stay home and practice the accordion until it’s time for colleges?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What does a black upper-middle class acapella singing boy who was a member of every NHS at his school bring to the campus that has not yet been brought by many, many others?</p>

<p>Besides his skin color?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, they do not. But all that it takes to create a diverse community is to give it a chance to be one. What you are saying is basically that, if AA did not exist, these black/native american applicants who carry valued cultural traditions would not stand a chance. OK, I’m fine with that. As long as black/native american applicants who would stand a chance even with the absence of AA are allowed to be admitted and enrolled, then there is no problem.</p>

<p>I’m not black. However, I spent a considerable portion of my adolescence under the guidance of my uncle-in-law, who happened to be black. Although my skin color may not show it, I could bring many cultural traditions that may be assigned to African Americans. Remember, as Yurtle pointed out, culture is not a birthright. It’s what you and society make of it. </p>

<p>So yes, I can bring the same cultural traditions onto campus. Would I get an ever so slight but nevertheless present AA boost? </p>

<p>No.</p>

191

<p>Re 185</p>

<p>But why would you be angered if racial preferences were done away with? Did you not say that “ALL people who are accepted to amazing colleges get in on their own merit”? If you really believe that, then what’s the point of racial preferences? You’d be giving “ever so slight” boosts to people who had no need or use for them.</p>

<p>I myself would have no problem with picking an “underrepresented” minority candidate whose only weak point was a comparatively low SAT score over a white or Asian candidate whose only strong point was a comparatively high SAT score, relative to the overall student body. But as antonioray pointed out, what if the two candidates are virtually indistinguishable on all aspects other than SAT? Are you still going to pick the “underrepresented” candidate over the white or Asian candidate, even if the former has the lower SAT score?</p>

<p>I stick with my 98/99 - 69/70 metaphor. When racial preference advocates argue that the boost is “ever so slight,” they want others to view the boost as going from a 98 to a 99. If I were supposed to receive a final grade of 99 but ended up getting a 98 due to grading error, I wouldn’t care; it’s an A either way. But if I were supposed to receive a final grade of 70 but actually got a 69, oh, you better believe I’ll sprint to the professor’s office and complain.</p>

<p>One point may indeed be “ever so slight,” but depending on where it’s allocated, it could have substantial consequences. When you really stop and think about it, one point that determines whether you pass or fail is hardly “slight.”</p>

192

<p>

</p>

<p>How is it a non sequitur? To assert that racial preferences play an insignificant role in college admissions but fight tooth-and-nail to keep it when its existence is challenged is not consistent behavior. If it’s not a big deal, why make a big fuss out of it? It only makes perfect sense to raise hell about racial preferences if you believe that it does play a significant role, that its existence is necessary to achieve “diversity.”</p>

<p>Ever since I started discussing this in high school, I have always found it humorous how so many well-educated people have managed to rationalize away this blatant inconsistency in their minds. If racial preferences truly were mere breadcrumbs, its supporters would not try every trick in the book to prevent ballot initiatives from reaching the ballot. Its supporters would not try to overturn the ballot initiatives through the Courts. Those behaviors are not congruous with a “who cares?” policy.</p>

193

<p>*
a White student with higher test scores who would not bring anything unique to campus *</p>

<p>a White, upper-middle class a capella singing boy who was a member of every National Honor Society at his school would not bring something to campus that wouldn’t have already been brought by many, many others.</p>

<p>Wow…what a stereotype. Most white students are not “cookie cutter” kids…even those that are upper middle class honor students. To assume that such a student wouldn’t have much unique to bring to the campus is really ridiculous. A middle class white kid from south Florida doesn’t have the same outlook on life or life experiences as a middle class white kid from Ohio, N. Dakota, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, or Hawaii.</p>

<p>If your logic was used in reverse, some racist might assume that a low-income URM can mostly only bring an inner-city culture to a college. Such an assumption is outrageous; so is the former.</p>

194

<p>

</p>

<p>“The effect this policy has is not very significant” is not the same statement as “who cares, the policy doesn’t matter”. If I don’t think that affirmative action does anything in all but a very few cases, why is it inconsistent to say that it SHOULD be applied in those few cases?</p>

195

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not the inconsistency. The inconsistency lies in claiming that it doesn’t do anything in all but a very select number of cases and then fighting viciously to maintain the existence of racial preference programs. If the effect is so insignificant, why fight so hard to keep it?</p>

<p>Again, this is what I have always chuckled at. The same people who will tell you that racial preferences are mere peanuts are the very same ones who will prophesy of horrendous consequences that would surely occur if racial preferences were abolished. It just doesn’t make sense to label racial preferences as a policy with an insignificant impact and fight tooth-and-nail to keep it going when it’s challenged.</p>

196

<p>What if where the “bar is set” should not be determined by the highest SAT scores achieved? What if 2000 is where the bar is set, no matter HOW high the average applicant’s scores go? After 2000 ( or some other number), all SAT scores would be treated as equal. Otherwise, to me, it’s like some sort of arms race, which is sort of meaningless if the biggest bomb has limited usefulness. There would be no talk of “lowering” the bar. It would be understood that the bar was set high enough for that particular factor.</p>

<p>"It just doesn’t make sense to label racial preferences as a policy with an insignificant impact and fight tooth-and-nail to keep it going when it’s challenged. "</p>

<p>I’m just jumping in impulsively here, but assume it’s the usual discussion. I think there is a significant impact in terms of "diversity, but a relatively insignificant number of seats “taken” by the 2000 or so fortunate Blacks able to take advantage.</p>

197

<p>

</p>

<p>If you say that there is a significant impact on the resulting “diversity,” I would view that as a fair statement. I don’t agree, of course, because I believe that as long as you do not have institutionalized segregation and Jim Crow-style laws, you will have diversity.</p>

198

<p>

</p>

<p>how is it a relatively insignificant number? One is too many, wouldnt you agree?</p>

<p>I’m not being harsh on blacks. I’m just saying that if there was a better qualified applicant who happened to be of “majority status” vs a black applicant, and the only “advantage” that the Black applicant has is his or her URM status, then the better qualified applicant should be granted admission.</p>

<p>After all, he or she is better qualified. :D</p>

<p>As to your bar thing: even if it were lowered to 2000, some URMs will still be below it, just as there will be “majority applicants” who will be below it. Therefore, you must be advocating automatic rejection to those who don’t meet the “bar?”</p>

<p>I think the problem is twofold:</p>

<ol>
<li>URMs think that their URM statuses are entitlements by birthright.</li>
</ol>

<p>That is very dangerous. A Hispanic friend once said “I don’t have to do as well because I’m Hispanic.” So he didn’t do as well as he could’ve. We have yet to see the consequences, if any, of that action.</p>

<ol>
<li>Colleges and Employers feel obligated to grant it. I think one of the reasons is because they have done so for so long. To them, it just would not feel right to withdraw suddenly.
That’s only a theory; we might need something along the lines of Gratz v Bollinger 2nd
to allow colleges/employers to gradually but inevitably tail off. </li>
</ol>

<p>Am I advocating the elimination of AA? Yes, I guess you can say that. The reverse discrimination rebuttal is trite but true: since when did we adopt a mindset like “if you’re white, OK, we expect you to be ‘white?’”</p>

199

<p>“1. URMs think that their URM statuses are entitlements by birthright.”</p>

<p>And here we go…I’m sure everyone can come up with anecdotal examples of someone who was raised form toddlerhood thinking an elite school is their birthright. If you know that person, or live in such a setting, I can understand why you, or anyone else on CC might feel one is too much. I have NEVER met such a person. I beleive most don’t find out about their improved odds until they have taken the PSAT. </p>

<p>From where I sit, 2000 students are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of 18 year old African Americans, and 2000 seats seem like a relatively small number of “spots” given all the options available. </p>

<p>Again, this is TO ME. To ME. I get it. Not to you.</p>

<p>So should I take up YOUR cause for the 2000 seats, or should you take up mine, for the 10 million others 9 not a real number)? or should we each advocate for what we feel compelled to, based on our life experiences? I feel blessed to be in such a position to even think about this. I am astounded to think about what the odds were against me being who I am today, and the odds against so many of the kids who post here, even if they are well off. What are they and their parents, and their parents parents doing right? That’s what I want to talk about. Obviously, just not here.</p>

200

<p>

</p>

<p>There is a difference between “birthright” as “since they were born” and “birthright” as in “all you have to do do is be born into some circumstances.”</p>

<p>I meant the latter, if it wasn’t obvious enough.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>2000 students are also a drop in the bucket compared to the number of 18 year old Asian Americans and Caucasians. What do you say to them?</p>

<p>As a side note, I’m curious why you chose 2000 to be the bar of all bars. Why not 2300? or 2250? if it makes a difference? why 2000?</p>