<p>^Thanks fabrizio for the link, I think I said racial classifcation is a good proxy for socioeconomic problems faced by poor Blacks in America … practiced in a holistic way. </p>
<p>I did not say it was the only proxy nor did I say it should not be used in a non holistic way.</p>
<p>fabrizio, Now that we know how many Blacks come from immigrant backgrounds to the Ivy Leagues, can you share what percentage of Blacks were admitted with unusually low GPAs and SAT scores (benefitted from Affirmative Action)? In other words, how do we know that the immigrant and wealthy, educated family Blacks are not being held to a higher standard than those who are from poor uneducated familiy Blacks? Once again I believe you are underestimating the role and abilities of the Adcoms to discern these things. As I have said before I do not believe that the children of an Obama or Colin Powell deserve a boost from Affirmative Action. What I have said all along is that race is a good proxy for Blacks from poor uneducated families. I do not see how what you have shared refutes that point. I also do not see how Adcoms would be able to ascertain this without asking the race question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course I cannot. I don’t think any selective private university would ever reveal that information voluntarily; they are loath even to disclose averages by racial classification!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, you have said that all along…without any supporting evidence. Can I rule out that the first- and second-generation black Americans at the Ivy Leagues were evaluated at a higher standard than blacks from poor uneducated families? No, I cannot. But if I should just trust the adcoms, why is it that first- and second-generation blacks made up 40.6% of all blacks at the Ivy Leagues in 1999 when nationwide, they only made up [url=<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]13%[/url”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]13%[/url</a>] of all blacks aged 18 or 19 in that year?</p>
<p>That is to say, why were first- and second-generation black Americans so “overrepresented” at the Ivies in 1999 despite adcoms’ “knowing” that they had advantages that other black applicants did not have?</p>
<p>Averages are misleading, nominal income doesn’t take into account cost of living, and data from two years at one school may be not be generalizable. With these caveats, please note that for the incoming classes of 2001 and 2002 at Duke, black students came from families that had the lowest incomes on average but were still six digits: [url=<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors]$118,316.[/url”>Duke draws ‘rich kids of all colors’ - The Chronicle]$118,316.[/url</a>] By contrast, the mean income for all U.S. households in 2001 was $58,208.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should share some supporting evidence that the black students at prestigious universities do, in fact, mostly come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and communities. My evidence is not the most compelling, I admit, but I have given you sources suggesting that black students at these selective universities are similar to their peers in terms of where they come from.</p>
<p>Ahh, when you said “It does not get talked about much because zip code discrimination is not illegal, where as race discrimination is illegal.” you confirmed that Affirmative Action (race discrimination) should not have been existed.</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>So if the blacks who lost it’s connection to African culture get prefernce and be admitted into top colleges they will get their culture back! Comon, you can’t provide support of any of this bull.</p>
<p>I can see African Americans will not agree to give up use of racial (specifically balck) preference unless our law force them to. </p>
<p>So be it. Asians who are taught to be calm, low key, not to fight are now awakening and will fight until Affirmative Action ends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this statement of yours, pretty much ends our conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would if that is what I was arguing. I am answering how race question on applications, is useful to Adcoms, looking to admit the best candidates to a class. I recall you suggesting it was unnecessary.</p>
<p>perazziman
Right - because you cannot provide ANY supporting evidence for anything, any statement you put there. Your claims are mostly ureasonable and no evidece. All are your own opinions. :-)</p>
<p>^You can believe that, if that is what you see. However, I am not sure that others who read the discussion will necessarily, come away with quite the same conclusion. Thanks for your time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re arguing that adcoms are more sophisticated than I’m giving them credit for, are you not? Specifically, you’re arguing that they can distinguish between first- / second-generation black Americans and third-generation+ black Americans, no? If they can and do, why is it that first- / second-generation black Americans were overrepresented by over 300% at the Ivy Leagues in 1999?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never understood how your answer justified the use of racial classification in admissions. From post #801, it seemed to be that if adcoms did not ask about racial classification, then they could not distinguish between a poor black student from a poor, disadvantaged community and a poor white student from a “knowledgeable” community.</p>
<p>But you subsequently made a big deal about how even though you don’t think there are many poor whites out there from poor, disadvantaged communities, adcoms can search for them based on certain zip codes. Those two points are contradictory in that if an adcom can infer a student’s background from zip codes, then he doesn’t need to know racial classification.</p>
<p>perizzman</p>
<p>Common replies to you are that people who read your posts found you never and cannot provide any evidence to support your view.</p>
<p>For your opinion that blacks who lost it’s connection to African culture deserve to get prefernce in the top college admission process doesn’t make any sense at all. Or what is your evidence that their getting in to top universities helped them with their culture connection to their old world?</p>
<p>Black world is not the only one with difficulty.</p>
<p>Asians are largely from China and their communist dictator Mao, Zedong claimed that HE KILLED OFF 40 MILLIONS of his own people proudly. (more actual count is 70 millions) but no one talked about it. Victims were intellectuals and rich populations. (when the top 1% got killed off, original top 2nd percent became top one percent, …etc) They killed until they were all poor, and their ‘cultural revolution’ destroyed all traditions, literature, and religion. That’s why they were/are all officially atheists.</p>
<p>I wasn’t from China but my father was. Once in a party I sat with a table of other 8 from China. Out of these 8, 7 of them had close relatives killed or imprisoned. My uncle was executed because he was rich and my grand father was starved to death because he was an intellectual. (not my case or the ones in the party I mentioned, but many people were betrayed by their relatives) These stories trained people to be quiet and not to trust anyone even family members. That’s why EVEN IF there is an asian community, people don’t always trust others’ information.</p>
<p>Communists’ nature is to take wealth, so no matter it is in Russia, China, Combodia, Cuba… they killed off rich first and then to prevent scolding, they killed off intellectuals. No exceptions in these countries.</p>
<p>Every race has it’s own sad stories and I don’t see why one race should be preferred over others in any cases. </p>
<p>In the civil war, white who supported black had shed enough blood for blacks and I think the hate or pittiful feeling from black should rest.</p>
<p>Asians are always look forward and tried to put the past behind, that’s why they continue to work hard. I think blacks should look ahead and forget the past as well.</p>
<p>This might have been asked before, but I don’t have the time to pore through 50 pages to find out. I just want to note that even if race is not asked by colleges, couldn’t they figure out by your last name (Especially if you are of Asian descent?) Which renders the whole idea, for me, pointless.</p>
<p>“couldn’t they figure out by your last name”</p>
<p>Yes. Even first name revealed a person’s race sometimes. People who support race-blind admissions suggested that admission officers not be able to look at race or name of an applicant.</p>
<p>“couldn’t they figure out by your last name”</p>
<p>So what happens in situations where the last name is hard to discern?</p>
<p>What happens when a child is adopted? Does a child who is African American, Hispanic or Asian, but adopted by white parents, include their race in admission decisions? How does that relate to the demographic/cultural/socioeconomic concerns adcoms have?</p>
<p>I am under the impression that at least for UC’s, they don’t see names. If they did, my kids might seem Irish. They don’t look Irish. Wonder whet happened there?</p>
<p>Can I leave this here for a minute? </p>
<p>[Middle-Class</a> Dream Eludes African American Families - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html]Middle-Class”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html)</p>
<p>Not sure of it’s meaning. An “old” bookmark from another thread. I hope to get back to it later.</p>
<p>It’s in the FAQ posts that make up the first page or two of this long thread: </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396869-post5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396869-post5.html</a> </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396997-post10.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/13396997-post10.html</a> </p>
<p>I fear for a college applicant who doesn’t read ten posts into a FAQ thread, but good luck with your applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My basic argument was that there can be poor kids who are hard working, academically motivated, independent and intelligent but who live in a world where knowledge and resources to prepare for the admission process was not available to them. These poor kids may not have test scores as high as some less motivated kids who had parents/ schools/ churches/ community centers pushing them to take summer classes, attend Academic competitions, prepare for the SAT and other standardized tests, and get counselling on which classes to take (AP, how many AP etc) to boost their GPAs etc. In which case, Adcoms should be able to identify these kids, and accept them over kids with better scores, if the Adcom feels they show more potential to take advantage of the four years in college and do better on the GRE and beyond. </p>
<p>The question then becomes how can an Adcoms identity such deserving kids? </p>
<p>In the case of the poor Black kids, the race question helps Adcoms determine if the Black applicant is from a Black World of poor inner city urban Blacks where the churches and community centers as well as schools he was attending did not have the knowledge/ information and resources to get kids ready for admission to top colleges. This is because things such as zip codes do not work as well in identifying who is from a challenged enviornment and who is not. For example a street may divide one zip code from another. A poor white kid with uneducated parents may attend a school with minorities but have a house in the white section of that zip code, also attend the Y, Church and other facilities with richer White kids across the street. A Black kid on the other hand, isolated by race cannot be expected to have access to that knowledge that poor White kids do in an America segregated by race. </p>
<p>In the case of small isolated, poor rural areas, without knowledge of the Admission process, Zip codes work quite well. For these communities to be White they would have to be extremely remote, for them to not have people working in their Ys, Churches and community centers etc who aware of the Admissions process. The truth is that many rural White communities that I have seen have a rich family or two with massive land holdings who provide community services and help thru White churches/ and community centers. By the way, this type of help is not available to URMs in distant, isolated, rural communities, so it not just for Whites. Adcoms seem to be fully aware of these situations and take them into consideration. To be distant and remote these communities are always have their own Zip codes and no large cities near them. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe this is a good system that cannot be easily abused. Afterall, no poor White family is deliberately going to leave their child in a poor distant rural White community to attend a pathetic high school. Similarly, no poor Black family is going to send their child to an inner city poor Black school with high drug, gang and crime stats. and poor academic standards to get a small edge in the Admissions process.The only Black famillies who live in the ghetto are those who have to live there. So, if you are an Asian looking for these benefits try moving to one of these distant communities.</p>
<p>“I fear for a college applicant who doesn’t read ten posts into a FAQ thread”</p>
<p>Okay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no problems with this paragraph or the question you ask. Your next paragraph is where I start to disagree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re saying that without knowing racial classification, adcoms cannot distinguish between</p>
<ol>
<li>a poor black applicant from the “poor inner city…where the churches and community centers as well as schools he was attending did not have the knowledge/ information and resources to get kids ready for admission to top colleges.”</li>
</ol>
<p>and</p>
<ol>
<li>a poor white applicant “with uneducated parents may attend a school with minorities but have a house in the white section of that zip code, also attend the Y, Church and other facilities with richer White kids across the street.”</li>
</ol>
<p>To that I reiterate the questions I have been asking you with no answer. Where is your supporting evidence, even of the indirect kind? How many demarcation streets between wealthy and poor whites exist in our country? How socioeconomically diverse are “white churches”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did first- and second-generation black Americans make up over two-fifths of all blacks at the Ivy Leagues in 1999, when they made up only 13% of all blacks aged eighteen or nineteen that year in our country? You’re saying that adcoms choose to “overrepresent” those students by over 300% even though they were “fully aware” that they were likely to come from professional families that espoused education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Trends</a> in black-white church integration. - Free Online Library](<a href=“http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trends+in+black-white+church+integration.-a0246956417]Trends”>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Trends+in+black-white+church+integration.-a0246956417)</p>
<p>"Today, when one visits various churches, it is still likely that congregations will be completely segregated or very slightly integrated–one or two white families in a black church, or five or six black ones in a white congregation. It is a profound statement on the state of race relations that Sunday morning remains such a segregated time that integrated congregations still merit news coverage because of their rarity. Because of the limitation of the GSS, we cannot document the changes after 1994. Future research should fill this gap with nationally representative samples. "</p>
<p>"Within each group, blacks or whites with a higher socioeconomic status should be more likely to attend the church of other race than their respective counterparts with a lower socioeconomic status because a higher social status is normally associated with less prejudice and more tolerance. In addition, people at the top of the social hierarchy often associate with each other to maintain their status and separate themselves from those who do not have as much prestige and power; on the other hand, blacks or whites of lower class backgrounds may find less necessity of attending the same churches. "</p>
<p>“Blacks and whites in urban areas are hypothesized to be more likely to attend each other’s churches than their corresponding counterparts living in non-urban areas because opportunities and options for interracial congregational interactions are greater in urban areas than in non-urban areas. Region is an important factor. Blacks and whites in the South, Midwest, and Northeast should be less likely to attend church with each other than blacks and whites in the West because the West has a progressive reputation and fewer historically segregated communities.”</p>
<p>Certainbly, if you believe these trends have changed then present the study that suggests it, especially among Black Churches in poor Black inner city neighborhoods, so I may know White kids are living in the same world as these Black kids.</p>
<p>I don’t see how your source confirms your statements. In fact, I see the opposite: your source confirms my doubts about your statements.</p>
<p>You claimed that “a poor white kid” could also attend “the Y, Church and other facilities with richer White kids across the street.” But according to your source, “people at the top of the social hierarchy often associate with each other to maintain their status and separate themselves from those who do not have as much prestige and power” (emphasis added).</p>
<p>So even if your hypothetical “poor white kid” did attend a “white church” with wealthy whites, your source suggests that beyond basic pleasantries, the wealthy families will not associate with the poor families. Your source states that “whites with a higher socioeconomic status should be more likely to attend the church of other race than their respective counterparts with a lower socioeconomic status,” which also does not support your claim.</p>
<p>Finally, the last paragraph you quoted from your source suggests that your hypotheticals may not be applicable to an entire region of our country. I am curious to read why you thought the paragraphs you quoted provided supporting evidence for your claim.</p>