<p>^ Thanks, Shrinkrap, I like both of those suggestions. I haven’t ever made statements about what the numerical “advantage” of one kind of ethnic category might be part of the FAQ posts, largely because I look for replication of findings like that, and my sense of the evidence is that such advantages, if they exist, are not uniform across all colleges. And it is also true that the constitutionally permitted goal of diversity in higher education classrooms gets interpreted in several different ways. I have at hand some books from the University of Minnesota Library about affirmative action policies, with various pro and con arguments, and perhaps reading those will build more nuance into the FAQ posts for the next posting of the thread.</p>
<p>I hope I’m not resurrecting an issue that has been discussed to death in this forum, but I’m wondering if I’m the only one who seems to think that schools such as Harvard and Princeton admit people with weak stats and boring extra-curriculars for the sole reason of being able to say, “Our diverse and international student body consists of an amalgam of students of 60 different nationalities!” After witnessing acceptances from schools in the Top 5 amongst friends from exotic countries who were rejected by schools in the 20s-30s range in rankings, I can’t help but feel as if the top schools do in fact admit students for no reason other than “cultural diversity”, and celebrate it far more than schools of a slightly lower caliber do. I’m not looking to argue about the fairness of it, I’m just wondering if anyone else seems to observing this phenomenon, or if it’s all in my head.</p>
<p>I’ve seen no indication that schools like Harvard and Princeton admit people with “h weak stats and boring extra-curriculars”. Period. I haven’t seen people of any race, ethnicity, religion etc. admitted with weak stats and ECs to such schools.</p>
<p>I’ve seen plenty of people of all races, ethnicities, etc. rejected from such schools despite having strong stats and ECs.</p>
<p>I’ve seen lots of rumors and apocryphal tales of weak students being admitted for diversity reasons, but in real life, I haven’t seen that happen.</p>
<p>My perspective is from having interviewed lots of students for Harvard, and having met lots of students at the kind of schools that you mentioned.</p>
<p>Here’s a true anecdote - 6 students that I know applied this year to the same elite college -all are male - 3 are white and 3 are black. All have grades and test scores within the same range - they are all excellent students. All 3 black students are admitted. All 3 white students are denied. Kind of makes you go hmmm…</p>
<p>"ll 3 black students are admitted. All 3 white students are denied. Kind of makes you go hmmm…:</p>
<p>It’s no secret that being a URM is an advantage when it comes to applying to colleges that are interested in increasing their diversity. So, no surprise that if 6 basically equal applicants to a top school, the ones accepted were the black students.</p>
<p>Still, what you’ve posted doesn’t support the OP’s idea that mediocre URMs are being accepted by top schools for diversity reasons.</p>
<p>If we were talking about students who were: stellar athletes; from impoverished countries that send few students to U.S. colleges; of an unusual religion; multimillionaire donors’ kids – they, too, would hold an advantage over students with similar academic stats when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>I agree - they were not weak applicants. I just thought that was an amazingly blatant example of the URM benefit.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, while I definitely appreciate your input, perhaps you and I have differing perspectives on the issue. I probably should have prefaced my post by explicitly stating that I am an international student. And although I would love nothing more than to provide you with two stellar examples to back up the claim that I am making, I think it is best for privacy’s sake that I do not. However, I will admit that compared to you, I only have a microscopic view of the whole picture and process.</p>
<p>From what I have seen, in many countries, “mediocre” college-bound students are head and shoulders above most even top American students. That’s because in many countries, it is very hard to be put on the track to be college-bound. Consequently, the international students you’ve seen be accepted to top American schools still may be extremely strong compared to Americans accepted to those schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course not. We’re not really arguing whether or not unqualified URMs gain admission, but whether less qualified URMs gain admission compared to more qualified non-URM applicants. Of course, the process isn’t black and white (ha), but there are definite advantages conferred both statistical (though I agree with tokenadult that these are by no means concrete or uniform) and less tangibly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The gist is that quotas are disallowed, but race is allowed to be used as a “tip” factor in admissions. So race isn’t worth 20/85 points officially (for schools that use numbers games for admission), but the advantages conferred could be similar even without exact numbers. </p>
<p>Fair? Maybe not. But I do think there is a need to actively combat discrimination. Sandra Day O’Connor said something along the lines of, “We must acknowledge race to transcend race.” Nonetheless, it’s frustrating to know that my advantaged black friends will recieve enormous advantages in the admissions process despite living nearly identical lives. As a whole however, I think O’Connor’s philosophy is true.</p>
<p>The thing is that they will not receive “enormous advantages”, they receive slight boosts. Chill out.</p>
<p>Funny thing is affirmative action only further supports and encourages prejudice.</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. It creates a diverse environment at schools, and many prospective students find that attractive in a school. It is still entirely possible for Whites and Asians to be admitted to top schools, as shown by the large White and Asian populations there; there is no need for anybody to get angry at minority groups simply because they receive a slight admissions boost at top schools. If one is feeling particularly angsty about AA, they need to aim their whining at schools, not minorities. Singling out minorities and hating them because they receive a slight boost in admissions is completely unreasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is a “slight boost”? Is it going from a 90 to a 100? Or is going from a 60 to a 70? In both cases, there’s a ten-point “slight boost,” but ten points are worth a lot more in the latter case than in the former.</p>
<p>That’s why I’ve never liked the “affirmative action is a slight boost” statement. It doesn’t make any sense to support a policy [by</a> any means necessary](<a href=“http://www.bamn.com/]by”>http://www.bamn.com/) if the policy only has a “slight boost” on the effect of protected minorities’ admissions to elite universities. It may, however, make sense to support it if not having it is the difference between “diversity” and “racial imbalance.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re supporting the slight boost because that slight boost helps push a few minority applicants into the “admitted” pile. If a school dropped AA, there were assuredly still be minority students at that school but the figure would be much smaller and Berkeleyesque.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that mean–“creates a diverse environment at schools”? Does it mean the college can take staged photo ops of students of different phenotypes smiling for their brochures? Or does it mean the students actually having meaningful relationships with students of other racial classifications?</p>
<p>Stanley Rothman, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Neil Nevitte published a paper titled “Does Enrollment Diversity Improve University Education?” in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research in 2003. They found that there was a statistically significant negative correlation between satisfaction with university experience, quality of education, and student work effort and enrollment diversity (measured by the proportion of black students). They also found a statistically significant positive correlation between unfair treatment and enrollment diversity (p. 17).</p>
<p>Granted, the absolute value of the correlations for satisfication with university experience and student work effort were both less than 0.10, but if you want to interpret it that way, it just means that enrollment diversity is essentially uncorrelated with satisfaction with university experience. Students may find “diversity” attractive when they’re in high school, but Rothman et al.'s study found that they didn’t really care about it when they actually started their college lives and indeed may have viewed it as a negative.</p>
<p>As an empiricist, I feel that there is no reason why “diversity” cannot improve university education, but it must be tested as a hypothesis, not revered as dogma.</p>
<p>Those pictures of students of all races impress students in high school and increase the number of apps they receive. Plus, assuredly at least some students are benefited by being surrounded with diverse (racially and culturally) students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your second sentence doesn’t logically follow your first.</p>
<p>Suppose that affirmative action really is just a “slight boost.” All it does is push “a few” protected minorities’ applications into the admit pile. A natural conclusion of these two sentences is that quite a few students from protected classes are already in the admit pile; affirmative action simply makes it a wee bit larger.</p>
<p>If that’s the case, then how does removing affirmative action result in “Berkeleyesque”-like racial classification percentages? Where’d all those “admitted without affirmative action’s small boost” minority admits go?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then promoting “diversity” is good for the school, but for all the wrong reasons: it increases the number of applications they receive without necessarily increasing the size of the incoming class, thereby increasing application fee revenues and decreasing selectivity. My goodness, no wonder the elites love their “diversity”–it’s a cash cow!</p>
<p>As Rothman et al. found, the students who were actually in college at best didn’t care about “diversity” and at worst, felt it was a negative with respect to their satisfaction with their university experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuredly? So you’re admitting that “diversity is good” is an axiom? We just assume it’s true and leave it at that?</p>
<p>As I’ve said before, it may be good, but it shouldn’t be assumed without testing.</p>
<p>
Wow that might be the single dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. First off, where in my post did I reveal any hint of “hate” toward URMs or single them out because they receive a “slight boost in admissions”. That’s right, nowhere. In fact, I am actually sympathetic toward URMs because AA only furthers promotes discrimination towards them. Your irrational defense of AA is what is truly “completely unreasonable”. </p>
<p>Now on to explaining my statement seeing as you obviously failed to comprehend the meaning. Affirmative Action works off the assumption that URMs are intrinsically inferior to Whites/Asians/Other Non-URMSand thus need a “slight boost in admissions” to put them at level footing. Both Affirmative Action and the aforementioned assumption used to support it have basically permanently entrenched the idea that URMs “inferior” in our society, and thus need a “handicap” in order to compete with non-URMs. Please tell me how this promotes equality of the races in any way.</p>
<p>Notice how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a URM Yale Law Graduate himself, adamantly opposes Affirmative Action. He, like many others who are not blinded by the quixotic ideals of AA, realize that using AA to erode discrimination is counter-intuitive.</p>
<p>Do you even remember what you posted just minutes earlier? I was talking about the “further supports and encourages prejudice”. I never implied that you were prejudiced.</p>
<p>Also, it works off the idea that there are simply not many URMs who reach for the top schools (and this may be due to a variety of factors, none of which involve racial inferiority). It’s not implying that URMs are inferior, it’s implying that there are simply fewer URM college applicants who would be reasonably acceptable students at top schools.</p>
<p>And your rudeness was completely unnecessary and stupid.</p>