<p>I don’t see how a poor black student’s low likelihood of attending a church that mainly consists of poor whites justifies racial preferences. With all due respect, I don’t see how any of your examples in any way motivate the use of racial preferences. You’re basically saying that you don’t think there are any whites or Asians in our country who can grow up in environments where they may be the first to attend an institute of higher education. I don’t think that’s true at all, but to the extent that it is, all the more reason to use socioeconomic preferences rather than racial preferences. According to your beliefs, socioeconomic preferences should not benefit any poor, disadvantaged whites or Asians who overcame obstacles because these individuals do not exist.</p>
<p>I’m really at a loss for words. I don’t see how you can in good faith agree with tokenadult’s position and then write a comment that expresses complete disregard for said position. If you want to “defeat the legacy of the segregationists,” why do you answer questions about racial classification as if a segregationist were asking you?</p>
<p>Maggiedog, It could be a parent, sibling or someone else writing who does not have all the facts. I know a parent who recently confused an SAT score of 1200 with 1600. So is it possible something like that may have happened? It could also be someone just trying to stir the pot. Then again, as far as 1800s on the SAT go, I saw a Hispanic kid who got into I believe MIT with about 1900. Further along, I found out he had an 800 in Math Reasoning and 2 800s in SAT Subject Math II and Physics. It is also possible that the kid could have a 3.5 because English is a foreign language for him and he didnt do well on some of the soft subjects, but does incredibly well in quantitative subjects such as Physics and Math. It is also possible that he went to very bad elementary and middle schools, but had really managed to pick up his performance in the last year. Perhaps he attend the Minority Program at MIT or something and impressed everyone. There are so many variables. The bottom line is that the university has several eyes go over an applicant before a final decision is made. They would not be working at top schools if they did not have a good reason for doing what they are doing.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should wait for him to respond and tell me I showed complete disregard for his position. Also, the last thing you seem to be is at loss for words.</p>
<p>I repeat my question: If you want to “defeat the legacy of the segregationists,” why do you answer questions about racial classification as if a segregationist were asking you?</p>
<p>^fabrizio, I request that you go back and read all my posts from today and try to retain that information so I do not have to keep repeating myself. Also, try not to piggyback off another person’s questions or you show no regard for context.</p>
<p>If there are poor uneducated Whites attending churches/ community centers without educated White members who have knowledge about what it takes to gain admission to top universities and if their kids are attending very low performance schools, then I do believe they should be treated the same as inner city Black kids in similar conditions. I have already stated that. I have also stated that I believe Adcoms already have specialists who know about such zip codes and such communities and look for talent in them. If they do not at some top schools, then I believe they should. That said, most churches and community centers for poor whites in large citites are not this way. They have resources and a knowledge base that poor White kids can tap into. This is something Adcoms are fully capable of considering. Why would you even think they do not?</p>
<p>“There are actually admissions officers who are assigned to work with applicants from particularly unusual zip codes. It is just that discriminating according to zip code is not illegal”
“I know that Admissions appoint individuals to work on specific zip codes because I was told this by an Admissions officer at an Ivy League during a visit with my son.”</p>
<p>perazziman, you need to give logical reasons why it is illegal but admissions officers would tell you who’s a stranger to them? And please give me the school name. I don’t believe the above are true statements.</p>
<p>Glad to see many don’t agree with your view. You just never give a credible reason why black need to be considered instead of socioeco. preference.</p>
<p>You keep bringing up ‘black world’. Do you know huge percentage of Asians are atheists and they don’t even go to church? They don’t have organized communities. Doesn’t that all-on-your-own ‘Asian world’ mean something if ‘black world’ means so much to admissions?</p>
<p>^“It is just that discriminating according to zip code is not illegal (I assume perizzaman meant to say: is illegal), so it does not get talked about much.”</p>
<p>You can try to argue that position, but I doubt it will get you very far with an Adcom. You are basically claiming that Asians do not form communities, which is contrary to the evidence. If Asians were so all-on-your-own, then Chinatowns would not exist. Then there is the fact that Asians are four times as likely to attend top schools… after which they do not vanish into thin air and lose contact with their families. Finally, a point about Asians being Atheists, this fact suggests that their community identity has not be devastated by Chrisitan White discrimination to the same degree as Blacks. For while Asians continue to be Atheists and speak their own Asian languages in their Chinatowns, we do not find African American communities that speak any African languages or follow any of their own African religious beliefs that defined them as a people.</p>
<p>I already did. Your main point appears to be that poor blacks need to be treated differently than poor whites and Asians because there are no poor whites and Asians in the U.S. who have overcome the obstacles you have in mind. To be fair, strictly speaking your point is that poor blacks don’t need to prove that they come from disadvantaged communities whereas poor whites and Asians do. Either way, I don’t think you have any evidence to support your main point.</p>
<p>There’s nothing complicated about this. You can’t claim to be against the legacy of the segregationists while answering questions as if a segregationist were asking you. You would be PERPETUATING the legacy.</p>
<p>Yep that is the point. Now why don’t you give me examples of knowledge rich black communities from which they may have come from? You know where they speak their old African langauges according to their old religious and cultural customs like the Asians?</p>
<p>Then from your perspective, there is no need for racial preferences. You can achieve the same result with socioeconomic preferences. After all, how can poor whites and Asians benefit from socioeconomic preferences if you don’t think there are even any eligible (keyword) poor whites and Asians?</p>
<p>If by racial preferences we mean everyone who belongs to a particular race gets a boost or a drag in admission, to compensate from some race based genetic factors, then no I do not believe in racial preferences. However, racial preferences, in the sense that race is a good proxy for socioeconomic problems faced by poor Black Americans and Native Indians in America, then yes, I do believe Adcoms should be able to practice racial preference, in a holistic way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hopefully, for the third and final time, I have said that there can be isolated pockets of deserving poor whites in rural areas of the country,** who can be eligible for socioeconomic benefits if they live in particular zip codes.** Infact top schools have staff members who are searching from applicants from these zip codes.</p>
<p>perazziman, this is what you said exactly:
“It is just that discriminating according to zip code is not illegal, so it does not get talked about much.” </p>
<p>It was clearly intended to say it ‘is illegal’ that’s why it does not get talked about much. Otherwise the whole statement doesn’t make logical sense at all. Well, most of your posts were like this. </p>
<p>Why did you delibrately take your own words out of context and tried to say it otherwise?</p>
<p>And you haven’t answered why ‘black world’ should be prefered but ‘Asian world’ shouldn’t.</p>
<p>Sorry, if it confused you. It does not get talked about much because zip code discrimination is not illegal, where as race discrimination is illegal. Does that help put my remark in it’s proper context?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Black community suffered such complete degradation, that it lost it’s connection to African culture, custom and language. With these losses, they also lost the wisdom of their elders, which is an important source of knowledge in human society. Asian Americans on the other hand, have managed to keep a connection to it’s old world culture, language, customs and religious traditions (the wisdom of their elders) because it has not been imposed upon as harsly by the White community.</p>
<p>Racial classification is a horrible proxy for socioeconomics. [A</a> 2007 paper](<a href=“http://margaritamooney.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/08/blackimmigrantsandblacknatives.pdf]A”>http://margaritamooney.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2011/08/blackimmigrantsandblacknatives.pdf) with data from 1999 computed that 40.6% of all black students at the Ivy Leagues were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Unless you think that black immigrants and their children tend to grow up in poor, disadvantaged communities that force them to overcome obstacle after obstacle, I think you may need to reconsider your belief that racial classification is a “good proxy” for socioeconomic problems.</p>