<p>Ah… I will let someone else (like fabrizio) bring you up to speed on the arguments against quotas. For me, subjectively, quotas are absolutely positively against what I believe a college is meant to do–educated the most meritorious AND deserving. A black kid and a white kid (to simplify the hypothetical) may be equally qualified, but which is the most meritorious? That judgment should be made without regard to diversity. And I believe socioeconomic status can hide a student’s true merit; race is often correlated with socioeconomic status, but it also unfairly deviates from this correlation.</p>
<p>I’m sure that HBCUs have affirmative action as well; but I do not hear people calling for them to make those policies explicit and open up the HBCUs to students of other races. Such calls are, alas, rather common with regard to the UCs.</p>
<p>What I am asking is, shouldn’t colleges be using admissions standards that are equally attainable for students of every race? Why should they rely on a test score that is more or less difficult for different races to excel on?</p>
<p>HBCUs have a very different purpose than UCs, a purpose which isn’t needed as much as it was decades prior. </p>
<p>Bay, that would be an ideal solution, but the toughest question to answer is, how do we go about attaining admissions standards that are equally attainable for every race when not everyone in America gets the same quality of education?</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that this is America we’re living in. It often isn’t about who knows the most or who deserves it the most; it’s probably half that, and half about who you know. Sad but true. Diversity is important, because it opens everyone up to a wealth of different opportunities.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with geographic preferences or wanting “diversity of thought.” I do, however, have a problem with the belief that there is a “black perspective” or a “non-Hispanic white perspective.”</p>
<p>To quote Justice Powell, “If [UC]'s purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.”</p>
<p>The un-Constitutionality of quotas has never been overturned.</p>
<p>Who says there is any “racial” difference in how difficult it is to get high test scores? Manifestly the way to get high test scores is to mark correct answers on the test answer sheet, and that is something that people from every “race” can (and do) manage to excel at each year.</p>
<p>And, to quote fabrizio for truth, who says that an admission system that doesn’t regard race will only regard test scores? It certainly seems to me that residential colleges will continue to regard “roommate qualities” of applicants, and any college with tough courses will continue to regard what the applicants studied in high school and whether or not the applicants got good grades in high school classes. As it is, the United States already has HUNDREDS of colleges with explicit open-enrollment policies, so there are already colleges that are open to anyone who cares to enroll and pay the tuition. (Paying the tuition is still one of the biggest barriers to college entrance, in actuality. </p>
<p>It really only makes sense to go undeclared if you’re an ORM (Chinese, Japanese, Korean). Whites are never really disadvantaged, and they’re obviously not going to assume that you’re a URM if you put undeclared.</p>
<p>The Economist magazine consistently has the best obituaries of interesting people of any weekly magazine. This week’s is especially worth reading: </p>
<p>[John</a> Hope Franklin, historian of America’s blacks | John Hope Franklin | The Economist](<a href=“John Hope Franklin”>John Hope Franklin)</p>
<p>^ thanks for clarifing. That what i meant, when applying to a highly selective school would it be advantageous to not reveal/declare your ethnicity if your of a group not considered a URM? Obviously they would not consider you a URM just because you did not specifiy, but would this eliminate ethnicity as a hinderance to acceptance.</p>
<p>Can’t they tell by your last name if you’re an “undeclared” Chinese, Japanese, Korean? I’m sure they can tell you’re Asian if you’re last name is like Chen, Matsuzaka or Kim.</p>
<p>lol… I have such an Asian name so it wouldn’t have mattered. </p>
<p>However, don’t apply undeclared ethnicity. There is no shame in revealing what ethnicity you are, and just to do so for a hypothetical advantage is just pure cowardice. Adcoms would rather pick up on the insecurity.</p>
who says that an admission system that doesn’t regard race will only regard test scores? It certainly seems to me that residential colleges will continue to regard “roommate qualities” of applicants, and any college with tough courses will continue to regard what the applicants studied in high school and whether or not the applicants got good grades in high school classes. As it is, the United States already has HUNDREDS of colleges with explicit open-enrollment policies, so there are already colleges that are open to anyone who cares to enroll and pay the tuition. (Paying the tuition is still one of the biggest barriers to college entrance, in actuality. </p>