<p>When do they predict the complete BROWNING of America? Then we would not have the color issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People bring this up a lot, but according to the 2010 census, only about 2.5% of responders identified as two or more races.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clarification accepted. So do you have any suggestions in mind in terms of an equivalent for Americans of Asian descent along the lines of black, white, and Latino (i.e. something that only makes you “think of a person’s race”)? I guess “yellow” and “Mongoloid” are not optimal candidates given that both have pejorative connotations. </p>
<p>Of course, an acceptable answer is that we should all be “just” Americans, but I am asking for your thoughts on an equivalent to black, white, or Latino for Americans of Asian descent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it were up to me, I’d come up with a linguistically pleasant term; not necessarily a color. But if I were going to go with colors, I’d consider Sepia or khaki or Topaz or Gold - something that connotes glamour and sophistication. 
That’s just me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not say it was illegal. I said,
</p>
<p>Why does knowing, advertising, classifying/sorting by country or region of origin, ethnicity or “race” matter so much???</p>
<p>We could sort by so many other things… such as wealth/income vs local COL.
Or decide which things really matter for the purpose of the sorting. Is that not what we are trying to teach, in the end?</p>
<p>Or just stop sorting completely and look at each individual in terms of who he/she is, what he/she says and do.
It feels limiting and seems to support and promote stereotypes, even though stereotyping by group or discriminating across a category is what it purports to prevent and stop. </p>
<p>I mean, which categories are right to use, anyway?
And are they even valid, given how hard it is for so many to decide on and fit a sub-set, and how varied the members of each sub-set are.
It starts to feel more like a game than a useful system.</p>
<p>The federal government’s purpose for it is to protect against unlawful racial discrimination. If you don’t know who is getting in, you have no way to determine whether discrimination is occurring. In the past, identification wasn’t required, and colleges/employers discriminated using other techniques. This is why I think not identifying yourself can hurt you in the long run.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really think this is true? My observation is that the vast majority of people know how they identify themselves in racial terms, including as two or more races.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would speculate that it may have something to do with absence of good support systems in certain communities such as Hispanic (especially MA and PR) and African American in the USA i.e. systemic problems. This the legacy of past institutionalized racism. So, for example kids who attend inner city Hispanic or Black schools may not even know about national science and math competitions or have resources to attend summer programs. They may not have school districts that help them prepare for SAT tests. They may not know about AP classes. They may not have connections to professors who can allow their kids to do research with them. So, ivies may be looking for kids from these communities, who may have the capacity to ramp up and catch up by taking advantage of the resources at top universities.</p>
<p>I guess I would say that one could tell that an applicant was interesting and talented and so forth without knowing his/her heritage… or skin color… Scores from some high schools are expected to be higher and from more tests than from others due to differences in resources and support, not due literally to the ethnicity/race/country of origin of the students.</p>
<p>^How (could one tell), without also knowing he was a Hispanic or African American to explain why he was affiliating with these poor ethnic neighborhood schools & institutions? I did not say anything about skin color.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So does your example support socioeconomic preferences or racial preferences?</p>
<p>^My example supports holistic admission, in which things such as socioeconomics, ethnicity and race of the applicant are all factored in. However, that is not all that has to be considered, the culture and community from which he comes also has to be considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do ethnicity and racial classification have to be factored in? In your example, it was all about attending “inner city” schools that are ignorant of Intel ISEF, USAMO, and so forth. It was about schools whose students don’t have the “resources to attend summer programs.” It was about school districts that don’t “help [students] prepare for SAT tests,” are ignorant of AP and IB coursework, and have no connections to professors who might offer research opportunities.</p>
<p>^ As opposed to the idea that race, culture and ethnicity are less important, maybe even irrelevant, compared to income and “class”. </p>
<p>Do income and class supersede race, culture and ethnicity?</p>
<p>Some say yes. </p>
<p>I am not sure, and not certain enough to choose “a side”.</p>
<p>I, my kids, nieces and nephews are reading …</p>
<p>Disintegration: The Splintering of Black America [Hardcover]
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385526547/ref=oh_o06_s00_i00_details[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385526547/ref=oh_o06_s00_i00_details</a></p>
<p>Direct Hits Core Vocabulary of the SAT: Volume 1 2011 Edition [Paperback]
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981818455/ref=oh_o05_s00_i00_details[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0981818455/ref=oh_o05_s00_i00_details</a></p>
<p>and </p>
<p>Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals
<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385526547/ref=oh_o06_s00_i00_details[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385526547/ref=oh_o06_s00_i00_details</a></p>
<p>Thanks, College Confidential!</p>
<p>That grammar is wrong, isn’t it?</p>
<p>^ Exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They have to be factored in because they were used to discriminate. There is an absence of wealthy communities related to these ethnicities and races because institutionalized racism prevented these ethnicities and races from developing normal communities in the USA. The average poor white family on the other hand, can usually connect to resources & opportunties thru it’s white church and other properly functioning institutions. As the children of whites become wealthier they can move into wealtheir white communities and take their families with them. Similarly, European, Asian and Indian immigrants have ties to their homelands, which they draw upon intellectually and financially, from time to time for support. The average African American does not have uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters in Nigeria, Bombay, Shanghai or Moscow. As they get richer they have no wealthy communities to move into related to their culture and heritage. </p>
<p>This is not to say that there cannot be individual families in all races and ethnicities that face severe hardships. There are and they can describe them in their essays to receive proper consideration in the holistic admissions process too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were used? Well, gee, if that’s the case, then (at least some) Asians should receive racial preferences, no? To this day, the Chinese are the only group to ever have been formally excluded from emigrating to the United States for a time period, and the Japanese were discreetly forbidden from emigrating to the United States due to the Root-Takahira Agreement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying that the “black church” is not a “properly functioning institution”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My parents were both Chinese immigrants. FYI, immigrants tend to support their parents once they start working, not the other way around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Should we have “wealthy [insert racial classification here] communities” in the 21st Century? Why should wealthy blacks limit themselves to communities that only have other wealthy blacks?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why shouldn’t all students who face severe hardships receive “proper consideration” regardless of racial classification?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If u are trying to compare the destruction of Asian culture in America with what African and Native American cultures suffered under slavery and the conquest of their homeland, I wish you good luck, friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the just the reply I was looking for. This is the problem with saying “They have to be factored in because they were used to discriminate”: inevitably, the discussion will degenerate into bickering about whose ancestors were oppressed more.</p>
<p>Your arguments support socioeconomic preferences. There is no need to restrict the granting of such preferences to so-called “underrepresented minorities.”</p>