<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. But I don’t think it makes sense to argue on the one hand that race isn’t real (notice that lookingforward always places quotation marks around ‘race’) but on the other hand advocate for “special consideration” (euphemism for racial preferences) based on racial classification.</p>
<p>It’s actually no longer a sociological construct, but a social one. I didn’t say “race” isn’t real- I said the term is disputed by academics, owing to thir own research into genetic similarities vs differences.</p>
<p>I put “race” in quotes because it is the term you and others return to. Not me. I use ethnic identity or ethnic background which I feel bring their own host of wonderful distictions. You can go look at the discussions which led the CA folks to change their wording.</p>
<p>I dont advocate for “racial consideration” or special consideration. I said it all in #177. It’s worth it for folks to look back at that. At that point, Fab (and maybe others) was arguing that there clearly exists a system/policy of "racial preferences". As we know, we have yet to see a college named that has this policy.</p>
<p>What’s happened on this thread, is that there are a number of posters well able to sustain their side of an argument- and some flinging down a gauntlet of (IMO) aggravating morphs of what another said. Boxing and reboxing quotes picked purposely, without, in many cases, regard for the context or adjacent wording. This means to me that we lose some of the purer points we could be discussing. It’s gas on the fire rather than productive critical discusssion. Somewhat meant, IMO to prolong the more inflammatory aspects.</p>
<p>Colleges have the right to choose the students they feel best fit their needs. They can define the sort of diversity they wish…including kids of different ethnic backgrounds. Read it and weep. You don’t like identifying kids by what the term “race” represents. FINE. But you are not college admissions. You (anyone) are merely representing a viewpoint. Colleges don’t share that viewpoint- and I have said repeatedly, claimed it, that I do see benefits in diversity of all sorts.</p>
<p>Hi, I am a new member of the forums. Recently I have been reading about the factor of race in college admissions, and these threads prompted a question. I am half Asian (father is Indian) while my mother is from East Africa (who migrated to America for college). I wanted to know whether I would be treated as a URM, ORM, or would the two cancel out (if I check both Asian and African-American on my application)? Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My mistake. Since you believe that “race” is real–you just don’t like the term–then there’s no contradiction; it’s OK for you to support racial preferences.</p>
<p>A sigh of exasperation would surely follow since “As we know [sic], we have yet to see a college named that has this policy.” There’s just one problem: “racial preference” was used four times in the Court’s opinion to [url=<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html]Grutter[/url”>GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER]Grutter[/url</a>], and none of the instances used “racial preference” in a way suggesting that Justice O’Connor viewed it as misleading. Hence, any university that uses racial classification in admissions, in compliance with Grutter, practices…racial preferences.</p>
<p>If applications from students who are so-called “underrepresented minorities” really blew you away, then there is absolutely ZERO need to consider racial classification in admissions. It would be a superfluous policy, akin to setting a minimum wage below the market driven equilibrium wage. That so many individuals fiercely fight against its removal suggests that the applications don’t really blow you away (cf. the Duke study’s ratings of applications by racial classification) or that there aren’t enough of these stellar applications, which would contradict epiphany’s similar claim that colleges “can get [desired demographics] abundantly because the well-qualified pool of applicants in the 21st century is rich in such possibilities.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking strictly about what is expedient for the applicant, colleges vary in their policies, but it most likely would not hurt at all to check both boxes, if you prefer that to checking none at all. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>
<p>Since you believe that “race” is real…
Did not say that, either. Gauntlet.<br>
Also said I do not believe “racial preferences” exists. Old argument. On record.
Grutter is in reference to law school at a public institution. Much can be researched about law school admissions practices and/or mis-practices- as well as limits placed on the operations of public colleges.</p>
<p>The loss here is that you consistently try to box me and others into a corner. Earlier, when a few posters said they could see both pro and con about affirmative action, you similarly tried to pin them into one position or the other. Why? Perhaps you do believe all intellectual stands must be clear cut, with folks ardently on one side, yea or nay. That misses the richness of discussion along the continuum. Can you see that blocks any honest discussion of the merits of diversity and any openness about where it could be altered, improved- or where it does not need to be? And, the means by which a college can form the diversity it wishes? Or the alternatives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you didn’t say that race is real, but you didn’t say that it isn’t real, either. How wonderful.</p>
<p>You can refuse to believe that racial preferences exist all you like. But that doesn’t change that Justice O’Connor used it four times in the Court’s Opinion to Grutter and never once indicated that the term was misleading.</p>
<p>As for your last statement, are you suggesting that Grutter only applies to public law schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, people can be on the fence or undecided. That’s totally fine. What’s not fine is pretending to be on the fence. Our arguments reveal our stances. People who are truly on the fence produce arguments both for and against racial preferences. What peeves me is when people claim to be on the fence but then never produce any arguments against racial preferences.</p>
<p>If you want to have a “discussion of the merits of diversity and any openness about where it could be altered, improved- or where it does not need to be? And, the means by which a college can form the diversity it wishes? Or the alternatives,” fine. How about you tell us what you think the value is in considering racial classification? Why is it important that schools be “plurality white, not too Asian, and just enough ‘URM’”?</p>
<p>lookingforward, it’s important to remember that although a private college admission case has not yet gone all the way to the Supreme Court, there is little doubt (based on the dicta in the previous Supreme Court cases, which originated as lawsuits about state university practices) that a private college would be held to exactly the same strict scrutiny standard, no more lenient, if the practices of that college were reviewed. And that’s even before we get to the issue of a more-likely-than-not trend (again, signaled by dicta in the Supreme Court cases) of further direction from federal courts to not have race-conscious decisions in college admissions. The particular practices of each college tend to be more than a little bit intentionally opaque (and that too comes from a Supreme Court precedent, namely Grutter), but there are practices that are plainly illegal, and if the facts showed such practices exist (a matter about which I don’t express an opinion regarding any current college), a private college would have to abandon those practices just as much as the losing colleges did in the previous cases.</p>
<p>Since my parents did not attend college in the USA, we needed to learn the whole race/ethnicity issue to make an informed decision about college apps. Here is the basic picture I got. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am not an expert.</p>
<p>A) Colleges can use race in admissions, (Grutter v Bollinger), but not as part of a quota system (Regents v. Bakke) or as part of a “points system” that automatically grants points based on race (Gratz v. Bollinger). So, this question is relevant for admissions purposes, but it is hard to gauge its exact importance, so I would not worry too much about how one answers from an admissions standpoint.</p>
<p>B) There exist special scholarships and internships which target underrepresented groups. It is for these scholarships (or internships) that the “race” question may be more important. </p>
<p>Basically, underrepresented groups are
-Black/African American (origins in sub-Saharan Africa)
-Hispanic (you or parents are native Spanish speakers)
-Impoverished (< 185% Federal poverty levels)
-Native American (may require tribal membership)
-First-Generation College Student (note: non-US university degrees count as college)
-Women in STEM fields (science, tech,
-Disabled (sometimes)
-Non-native English speaker (sometimes)
-Rural or Appalachian (at certain colleges)</p>
<p>So if you belong to such groups, you may consider looking for specific scholarships & internships or mentioning it on apps.</p>
<p>Post 487</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post 497</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You dont get this: The Elites want representation of a wide variety of highly accomplished students, and they want those from the 4 corners of the globe. Get it? Such fine students are not congregated all in NJ, nor all in MA, nor all in CT, etc., nor in the Northeast region as a whole.They were never just there. Its just that the Elites realized only fairly recently, as their history goes, just how much talent was spread throughout the land. Simultaneously, all those other States also discovered the Elites (realized that these colleges were options; realized that these colleges find regional diversity attractive, just like they find racial/ethnic diversity attractive). And the Elites expanded financial packages to accommodate more than members of the monied Northeast, which used to make up the bulk of Elite admissions.</p>
<p>In addtion, the talented pool is not all congregated, to an imbalanced degree, mostly/entirely among Asians, mostly/entirely among white Anglos, etc. There is no reason to prefer Asians, to prefer whites, to prefer New Yorkers or Iowans as categories in themselves arbitrarily.</p>
<p>Again, try to follow:</p>
<p>Demographics (characteristics of populations) extends to regionality as well. Life-long Minnesotans are not life-long Georgians are not Internationals from Europe. Different life experiences contribute to the diversity of a student body. It is hardly just race or ethnicity which contributes to diversity: its geography, interests, academic fields, personalities as well as race & ethnicity.</p>
<p>Given that the highly accomplished pool extends at minimum to some degree to all 50 States (not to mention overseas), there is no reason why the Elites would need to restrict themselves to arbitrary categories. What they like to do is to, in some degree, mirror the proportions of applicants in the admissions decisions (as long as the qualifications are there). This is why Asians are preferred: there are so many accomplished Asians who apply. This is why heavily represented States in the applicant pool will tend to see a balance in their favor come decision time. The colleges are not going to say: Wait, we must represent all 50 States equally, regardless of numbers of apps from those States, regardless of unevenness of distribution. The U.S. Asian student population is not mirrored quantitatively at Elites. They are represented to an imbalanced <a href=“favorable”>u</a> degree because so many apply, who are also well-qualified.</p>
<p>Not to understand that it is necessary (desirable) to include a wide geography as well as wide personal origins is to believe deep down that there is a limited pool of talent out there among undergrad applicants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Elite admissions committees are so inundated with talent from so many arenas (regions, origins) that the difficulty comes with the elimination. There is no reason not to consider the nation, as well as, to a lesser degree, the globe, in those decisions.</p>
<p>If you still do not understand this, after 7 years, I give up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I get that perfectly well. What I don’t get is how this in any way justifies racial preferences, and I don’t get that because it doesn’t justify racial preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please don’t think that there’s much, or even any, controversy in the GOAL as you have written it. Both you and lookingforward seem to feel that opponents of racial preferences oppose this GOAL; speaking for myself, I do not. What we have problems with are how this goal is IMPLEMENTED. I do not feel the consideration of racial classification is necessary to achieve the goal; you do. That’s fine, but you need to understand that where we differ is in how the goal is IMPLEMENTED, not the goal itself, and you also need to understand that you can’t use the goal as an excuse to justify racial preferences.</p>
<p>TA makes a good point that UG admissions may someday be subject to some high level of legal scrutiny. However, Grutter pertains to law school at a public institution. The correlation to private UG is not a given. It’s also possible to google and see the discussions of problems in attaining law school diversity, for a variety of reasons, and the acknowledged mis-steps that have been prevalent.</p>
<p>Ethnic diversity is an acceptable goal, mentioned in Grutter and other resources. The question remains, how to get there. How does a college identify and qualify this acceptable component of college admissions decisions? </p>
<p>In law, when a goal or end-point is deemed reasonable and/or acceptable, any given method of attaining it is reviewed (in part) in the context of whether there are adequate alternate- and satisfactory- means of getting there. Also, the difficulties, vaguaries, challenges and limits in using those other means. And, whether using the alternates would, in some way, bastardize or weaken them and their own intended purposes- or require changes that do that. And, so on.</p>
<p>Fabrizio keeps returning to some form of I do not feel the consideration of racial classification is necessary to achieve the goal. Then what?</p>
<p>In the absence of clear info (kid checks a box on the CA, tells his identity,) how should the college determine what he offers in with respect to the college’s desire for some ethnic balance? By what standards, limited to what factors? Fabrizio answered: ECs, essays, LoRs.</p>
<p>Those are not standards or factors. Those are sections in which one’s ethnicity “could” be gleaned or guessed- or not. If the kid doesn’t clearly state his ethnic id, we would be left to presume- and based on what? Stereotypes? Presuming is far less legally defensible than just getting the facts out.</p>
<p>See the conundrum? Some don’t like ethnic or “race” labels. But, then what? </p>
<p>Perhaps, it’s time to step up and make suggestions, Fab. How would you reach the goals, what standards and factors do you feel adequately identify the kids of the mixes the college wants? You have previously questioned ethnic balance and why there is a need for some semblance of the percentages in the general population. You have suggested diversity in interests and etc are acceptable, but that you see no need for “racial classification.” That’s why we thought you dissed the goal.</p>
<p>I hope we can stay away from what you assume I or others think, whether we are “pretending” to question some aspects of AA or set up straw men. No comments quoted out of their context. No labels flung out by anti-label folks.</p>
<p>I said it early on- I see flaws in Affirmative Action, but I see benefits in the results. That’s not contradictory. That’s not refusing to take a side. That’s saying the means are not perfect. But, the goal and it’s results are good. You missed your chance to ask, what flaws do I see- especially as an admissions reader.</p>
<p>lookingforward - do you know if colleges discount the income based on location and cost of living?</p>
<p>I support an income based AA in the past at the top schools which provide loan free FA. However, 100k in Houston is goes a long way vs 100k in NY City. I feel an expanded QB type program would provide them probably the same candidates but be equitable for all races?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it looks like you have been reading the FAQ posts at the beginning of this thread, and at least a few other sources, quite carefully and have summarized them well. I especially agree with the statement that from the applicant’s point of view there is no need to worry about this too much. It’s plain that some colleges regard student race fairly substantially in the admission process and some basically don’t regard it at all. It’s also plain that most United States colleges admit most of their applicants, and that most of those colleges (for at least some of their major programs) provide positive economic returns for enrolling and graduating even at full list price. </p>
<p>So, yes, decide for yourself how to report your own background truthfully (possibly exercising your right to say nothing about your race or ethnicity) and shop around for specialized college programs targeted at certain subsets of the college-applying population. Apply to a sure-bet “safety” college </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-dont-forget-apply-safety-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/493318-dont-forget-apply-safety-college.html</a> </p>
<p>that fits you, and apply to other colleges that are desirable to you, and then compare offers after you see where you are admitted. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“May someday”? Does *[Gratz[/i</a>] ring any bells? And based on your reiterated statement, are you still saying that Grutter applies only to public law schools? I invite you to check how many times Grutter is mentioned in [url=<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZO.html]Parents”>PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1]Parents</a> Involved](<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-516.ZO.html][/url]Gratz[/i”>GRATZ V. BOLLINGER) before telling us whether you still think that Grutter applies only to public law schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your wording implies that some students are admitted purely because of their racial classification. Not because they’re talented flautists, not because they’re active in community organizing, not because they live in Montana. Because they belong to arbitrary racial classification X.</p>
<p>Uh, if applications from so-called “URM” groups “blow you away,” why are you afraid that without explicit consideration of racial classification, these amazing students won’t get admitted?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then in the interest of actually having a discussion, perhaps you should define what you mean by “standard” or “factor.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the kid declines self-identification, what do you do if you want to know his racial classification? Nothing! Focus on the rest of his application, on what actually matters. Assuming he meets the minimum academic qualifications, does he have interests that you’re looking for? Does he have talents that you’re looking for? Is he a good writer? Do you think he “fits” your school? Ask these questions, not “OMG, I don’t know what this guy’s racial classification is! But he’s part of MEChA, so maybe he’s Hispanic?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I repeat my answer for the third time: colleges achieve diversity by considering subjective criteria such as essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations. And why would you think that I disagree with the goal if you understood that I believe in diversity as defined by talents, interests, and ideas?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? I asked you that in a private message: “I would accept your claim that you are not convinced about racial preferences if…you could show me that you can list several reasons why racial preferences are NOT the ‘right way to solve problems.’”</p>
<p>How’d you respond? “[W]hy should I need to show you why RP doesn’t work?” And now you claim that I never asked you!</p>
<p>But that’s in the past, and I’ve corrected your misstatement, so why don’t we try this again? What flaws do you see with racial preferences? Please feel free to substitute “affirmative action” for “racial preferences” if you still find the term unsavory, its usage in Grutter notwithstanding.</p>
<p>Nope, Fab, - again, nope. At various points, I suspected you are joshing. How does my wording imply what it does not mean? Read it again minus your own filter- ie, objectively. I might say, without regard for the next opening for a retort. Please.</p>
<p>If the kid declines self-id, I suggest he has not self-identified. Maybe we get some sense from other aspects of the app- or maybe this is left to presumption and stereotypes. It is so dangerous and unfair to assume. “Oh, from GA, certain clubs and he plays basketball…” We don’t assume or presume. In fact, it is not the adcoms’ or readers’ job to read “between the lines” in any segment of the app- we take what is given. It wouldn’t be fair to a kid to assume, nor to the process. More about that if someone is curious. </p>
<p>Standards or factors are the markers one could use; they are not “an essay.” The essay is a medium for conveying info relevant to the review for admission. It may or may not contain a single whit of identifying info beyond an experience or attitude. It should reflect maturity, perpective, evolution, how one faces a challenge or is influenced, plus writing strengths, etc. </p>
<p>And why would you think that I disagree with the goal if you understood that I believe in diversity as defined by talents, interests, and ideas? Clarify please: you accept the goal of ethnic diversity (above, response to epiphany) AND you define it as * talents, interests, and ideas?* Are you saying a Hispanic kid shouldn’t call himself Hispanic but should clearly state in the essay or ECs that he has talents, interests and ideas that- uh-oh- mark him as presumably Hispanic? Maybe I’ll let epiphany tackle that one. This gets terribly convoluted. To be or not to be.</p>
<p>As for this: “I would accept your claim that you are not convinced about racial preferences if…you could show me that you can list several reasons why racial preferences are NOT the ‘right way to solve problems.’” Honey, if you believe there is an elephant in the room (as I said,) point him out. It is not for naysayers to find the beast. YOU believe there are racial preferences. YOU dig up the evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Could use to determine what? “Identifying info”? What’s that? Racial classification? Or since you believe race is neither real nor not real, ethnicity?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, thanks for proving my point that “diversity” to you and company is shorthand for “racial / ethnic diversity.” I did not say I accept the goal of “ethnic diversity”; I said I had no problems with “The Elites’ [wanting] representation of a wide variety of highly accomplished students [and] from the 4 corners of the globe.” </p>
<p>The wording of the goal in essence served as a Rorschach test; how we interpret it reflects our biases. In my case, my biases lead me to interpret “wide variety” based on talents, interests, and ideas. In your case, your biases led you to interpret “wide variety” based on ethnicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already gave you the evidence. As a term, “racial preferences” was used FOUR times in the Court’s Opinion to Grutter. I reiterate that it was the COURT’s Opinion, not a concurrence, dissent, or other opinion. Not once did Justice O’Connor use “racial preference” in a way that suggested the Court felt the term was misleading.</p>
<p>Your response to that was to insist twice that Grutter applies only to public law schools. I suggested that you count how many times Grutter was cited in Parents Involved before making the same erroneous statement three times.</p>
<p>If you don’t like the term, you don’t have to like it. But you do have to accept that it refers to a practice which exists. Again, none of this is necessary. What flaws do you see with “affirmative action,” your preferred term for “racial preferences”?</p>