"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 9

Applying to College
721

<p>

</p>

<p>Too bad by placing URM’s at institutionas they are not as qualified for, the chances of them staying on their track in ‘hard’ sciences or economics is significantly lowered.</p>

<p>“Black freshmen arrive at Duke overwhelmingly planning to major in natural sciences and economics, but over half of them drop out of those fields and switch to the humanities and soft social sciences, leaving the hard sciences largely the province of whites and Asians. Whether a Duke student will switch out of the hard sciences is wholly a function of his incoming academic qualifications, measured by SATs and high school GPA: black students whose academic qualifications match those of their white and Asian peers are no more likely to drop out of quantitative fields than other students. The average black SAT score at Duke, however, is over one standard deviation below those of whites and Asians, thanks to the university’s use of racial preferences, and it is those preference beneficiaries who are exiting the science classes in disproportionate numbers. Had they instead found themselves in a freshman chemistry class geared toward learners with similar academic backgrounds as their own, they would have been far more likely to persist in their science careers, as the success of historically black colleges in graduating science majors demonstrates.”</p>

<p>-From the article I linked earlier.</p>

722

<p>

</p>

<p>I question how effective racial preferences have been in getting blacks out of poverty. According to Thomas Sowell in Affirmative Action Around The World, “As of 1940, 87 percent of black families had incomes below the official poverty line. By 1960, this was down to 47 percent of black families…During the decade of the 1970s, the poverty rate among black families fell from 30 percent to 29 percent.” Now the past few years were not good in terms of the economy, but as of last year, the poverty rate among black families was [27.4</a> percent](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Number Of Americans Living In Poverty Hits 52-Year High, 27.4 Percent Of Blacks Under The Poverty Line | HuffPost Voices).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I question how effective racial preferences have been in accomplishing the things you listed. As NuclearPenguins alluded to, a recent Duke economics / sociology working paper documented that for a cohort at Duke, "URM"s were as likely as whites and Asians to express an interest in quantitative majors such as economics, mathematics, and the natural sciences. However, unconditionally, blacks were far more likely than whites and Asians to transfer from these majors into humanities and the non-economics social sciences. Now, that in no way suggests that blacks are inferior, as once SAT score and private information from the Duke admissions office was controlled for, blacks were no more likely to switch majors.</p>

<p>Your post basically relies on a notion of “Yale or jail.” That is, if a black student does not attend a prestigious university (i.e. the kind that practice racial preferences), then he cannot be a successful scientist. He cannot be a successful CEO who leads a large multinational company. He cannot be a successful writer. All of those are false. What I have never understood is why whites and Asians are supposed to succeed wherever they go, but if blacks have to attend Georgia Tech and not MIT, they are doomed.</p>

723

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sorry; I don’t see the rationale at all. I don’t want an underqualified legacy admit, full pay admit, or athlete given a pass because of money or for school spirit. Perhaps they should attend a school more suited to their academic qualifications …</p>

<p>Whether your admission has been purchased with your check, your parents alumi status, athletic prowess, or racial makeup… your admission was still purchased. The only difference I see is how very hard some lobby to make some preferences more accepted than others.</p>

724

<p>@Fabrizio

</p>

<p>I read that study, and it actually quoted a difference of 13%. Blacks were 68% more likely, while whites and asians were 55% more likely to change their major. I’m not sure that qualifies as “far” more likely; just “more” likely.</p>

<p>Also, just to highlight the fact that this is not something isolated to URMs. I wonder what majors an underqualified athlete would choose??? Just curious.</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> athletes had access to list of ‘easy’ classes | California Watch](<a href=“[700+] California Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com”>[200+] Virginia Wallpapers | Wallpapers.com)</p>

725

<p>

</p>

<p>Universities exist right now that will meet most of your needs. For example, UC Irvine does not give preferences to legacies, URMs or full pays. Low-income students get a preference. While UCI is a Division 1 school, it does not have a football team and offers only 9 sports per gender, so you will rarely need to confront an underqualified athlete. UCI may be a very good fit for you.</p>

726

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps so should the underqualified URM’s, lol. That argument works really well against AA doesn’t it?</p>

<p>You NEED money for a school to run, you do know that right? Otherwise a school with limited funds might have to offer less financial aid to the poor kid who did get accepted, and lo and behold because they didn’t receive enough aid, they can’t attend the school anyways. Or, programs are cut, lesser professors are hired, class sizes increase, etc.</p>

<p>I also love how you ignored the part about athletes having to show dedication in their sport. Just like how musicians have spent years and years honing their skills, athletes do too. I don’t know about the world you live in, but certainly in mind there isn’t a black kid spending years honing his “blackness”, the latino kid honing his “latinoness”, or any other race.</p>

727

<p>“I don’t know about the world you live in, but certainly in mind there isn’t a black kid spending years honing his “blackness”, the latino kid honing his “latinoness”, or any other race.”</p>

<p>Bookmarked</p>

728

<p>Is there a presumption that the adcom gets as far as URM and in the mad rush to admit more, they lower the bar in significantly noticable ways? Or, they spot an Asian-American and the bar suddenly goes up? Or that legacies are guaranteed a spot?</p>

<p>Not my experience. (Again, I refer to top privates.) For each kid, there has to be some prediction of potential success (academic and other) at this college. And, after college. Most of us agree here that that’s more than stats. There is a fuller matrix of considerations- experiences outside hs classes, maturity, genuine leadership, maybe awards and legit recognition, some sensitivity to others and relevant efforts, some initial evidence of drive and curiosity, writing and critical thinking skills, and more- all shown and backed up in the app and LoRs. </p>

<p>Ime, plenty of legacies, first-gens, kids of all backgrounds, lose out, by their own hands- the app packages themselves fail to present the full picture of the sort of kid we want. No one, ime, is afraid to say, legacy but blah. Or, overcame many obstaces in his life but underqualified for this college. Or, whatever. The actual number of kids who slide through because they hold one hook only is miniscule. </p>

<p>Now, someone might say, again, “so why look at race, at all?” Because our world IS made up of many types. Like it or not, we come in different colors, have different backgrounds, socio-economics, have a variety of different experiences, influences and talents, triumphs and failures, outlooks and concerns. In the end, when final decisions are made, when they stare down the pile of thousands of finalists who’ve been through multiple reviews, they will consider how one kid will add to the richness of the academic and social climate this college wants. But, these are qualified kids- run through the wringer of multiple reads and opinions.</p>

729

<p>

</p>

<p>Wait. We should look at racial classification because it exists as a sociological construct? That makes no sense whatsoever.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So a kid can admitted because he’s of a certain color and having an additional student who is of that certain color “add[s] to the richness of the academic and social climate”? I think if you actually said that in an information session, only the most diehard advocates of racial preferences would give you a pass.</p>

730

<p>Alone, heritage or ethnic background or skin color or first-gen or being poor or whatever, does not matter. What matters first and foremost is the sum total the individual kid offers in his or her app. You wont get admitted with sub-par stats and a lackluster app, unsupportive LoRs, etc, just because you fit some purported quota. At a top private.</p>

731

<p>I came across this interest article about Stuyvesant High:</p>

<p><a href=“Black at Stuyvesant High — One Girl’s Experience - The New York Times”>Black at Stuyvesant High — One Girl’s Experience - The New York Times;

<p>That graph on the left on changing demographics…it must be a nightmare for those on the left and the right.</p>

732

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure that everyone here agrees on the fact that ethnicity alone will get you into a school. There is no denying, however, that affirmative action can have a significant effect acceptance standards.</p>

733

<p>^“I’m pretty sure that everyone here agrees on the fact that ethnicity alone will get you into a school…”</p>

<p>Freudian slip?</p>

734

<p>

Excellent! LOL</p>

735

<p>@NuclearPenguins

</p>

<p>When people argue vehemently for financial preferences that favor full pay, frankly it makes me shutter. Seriously, your awesome skill at the oboe is not going to help you in chem 101. In fact, because that athlete or musician will now be required to spend hours away from studying being in band, football, or whatever means they should MORE than qualified to attend, not less.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t even know how to respond to this. Do you mean its easy to be black or latino so you don’t have to work at it? Have you been black or latino in America?</p>

736

<p>

</p>

<p>So do you support or oppose preferences based on extracurricular talents? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, I don’t envision black or Latino students spending several hours a day outside of their studies and work practicing how to “be black” or “be Latino,” respectively. Your post suggests that blacks and Latinos do “have to work at [being black and Latino].” In the interest of having a productive conversation, I’d like to know what you mean by “have to work at [being black and Latino].”</p>

737

<p>I don’t have time for a productive conversation right now, but I must say the initial post had me thinking a bit. Not so much about college admissions, but about what role cultural identity issues of many (not all) blacks and Latino’s play in their eduicational environment. Could this be “work of” being black or Latino. </p>

<p>One thng that comes to mind for me at work is the “underutilization”, relatively speaking, among black and Latino boys “diagnosed” with ADHD, compared to white boys “diagnosed” with ADHD. I often wonder if culturally, the personality changes, for lack of a better word, are considered intolerable side effects in some cultures, while they are desirable in others.</p>

738

<p>

Ahhh my bad. I was going to type disagrees at first, but then it didn’t sound that smooth so I changed it to agrees then forgot to change the second part of that sentence. Woopsies.</p>

<p>

Nope, I have not been black or latino in America. Yes, racism exists and it is definitely easier to be white. But that does not explain why asians, people from the middle east, LGBT’s, or jews, for example, do not receive the same benefits then. These are all groups which have faced much discrimination in the US. However, that is not the point I am trying to make.</p>

<p>I am talking about having to actually put time and effort into honing a skill or talent that you have. There is no talent for being _______ race or URM. You are born black, or born latino. Even if you are naturally gifted in sports or music, talent alone is not nearly going to be enough for somebody to succeed in their respective field. The hours put in on the court/field, watching game film, taking lessons, studying music theory, etc. are all for an end goal. </p>

<p>

So what if being able to shoot a ball into a goal or being able to run really fast isn’t going to help you in class? Being a URM isn’t going to help you in chem 101 either. You also seem to assume that no other extracurricular activities are a serious time commitment. Anybody joining student government, anybody holding a job, anybody on the debate team, or anybody writing for a school newspaper all have to take large amounts of time out of their day to do so as well. And as far as I know, those are activities open to everyone on campus. It is all about being able to have a balanced schedule and practicing good time management. I seriously doubt that if somebody was not on a sports team, every single minute of that time out on the field would be used for studying instead.</p>

<p>I for one, have never heard of “blackness” or “latinoness” classes. Have you? If you have, please enlighten me and tell everyone how somebody has to practice the art of being a certain ethnicity.</p>

739

<p>"If you have, please enlighten me and tell everyone how somebody has to practice the art of being a certain ethnicity. "</p>

<p>Some might say it’s working at NOT being a certain ethnicity. I think that is what I was contemplating in post 737. Not nearly as hard as playing sports well enough to be recruited, but maybe neither is “scoring 2000 ion an SAT in the 8th grade with no prep!” as described by some students that post on CC.</p>

740

<p>So, what are the real advantages of indicating your race? What are you missing out on if you choose not to indicate it?</p>