<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they’re all definitely looking for people with 2.9 GPAs and 1300s on the SAT (new scale). That’s why there’s so many of those kind of people there!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re projecting your own reluctance to seek truth from facts onto others. “Negative action” is a well-documented concept. It does not surprise me, however, that you are so unwilling to denounce it.</p>
<p>
Once again, hiding behind the holistic admissions process blanket. The one way in which these colleges are able to conduct racial affirmative action is by having a holistic process; that way, they can deny any such claims of racial biases in terms of college admissions when they know that they are lying through their teeth.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063218174-post180.html]#180[/url]”>quote</a> I (and others) have said this a million times. Those screaming “discrimination” just don’t want to hear it. They’d rather define their own standards of admission (which they feel entitled to define), and then “prove” that an entire (combined) group is systematically excluded or severely reduced in representation based on standards they have created. Never mind that they aren’t systematically excluded but specifically admitted in higher numbers than any other group, and further, that large numbers of them refuse offers of admission at some Ivies to accept offers at other Ivies or similar schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And there’s the rub. Many applicants want to be evaluated as individuals without consideration of ‘group’ membership. Thus the increasing numbers of [‘Race/Ethnicity</a> Unknown’](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html]'Race/Ethnicity”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html).</p>
<p>We should celebrate the variety we have. </p>
<p>Those who don’t like holistic consideration can apply to state schools, those who do to private schools (it’s more based on averages, not so black and white as that).</p>
<p>Similarly, those who don’t want a boost due to race/ethnicity can check “Unknown.”</p>
<p>Those who don’t like certain aspects of college admissions can avoid them. We here are certainly not going to change anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, one thing in the admissions is a good enough reason to consider what school to go to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And those who didn’t like to sit in the back of the bus could have just walked.</p>
<p>If Rosa Parks had been content with posting here, nothing would have changed.</p>
<p>
And therein lies the circularity of many AA supporters. “You can’t do anything, so too bad.”</p>
<p>StichInTime:</p>
<p>Groups are not considered, and certainly not admitted, or rejected, as groups. But everyone – hardly just members of one particular continent – is additionally looked at in terms of the real-time balance, or lack thereof, in the realizable incoming class, after that student is evaluated as someone who is essentially qualified, and not before. The individual applicant is indeed looked at initially only as an individual. Once a large pool of qualified and individuals is determined, then a whole variety of sought-after qualities in the class as a whole is further refined. There are two dimensions, minimum: (1) quality of individual achievement & potential; (2) balance in relation to the rest of the sifted pool. To hope that ethnicity, nationality, or race will simply be ignored as one of many elements of that second phase (by no means the only or most important element) is to deny the college the right as a private institution to provide for a varied experience for the class and college as a whole. </p>
<p>These are **classes<a href=“communities”>/b</a> of students which the college wants to reflect the broad diversity in the country and to some extent beyond. A college or U is this country is not merely a random collection of test-qualified individuals. And again, it doesn’t matter. If there were no qualitative evaluation of class balance, and students were merely admitted on quantitative measures, hundreds of high-scoring individuals (Asians, whites, more) would not be admitted due to lack of space.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am only a foreigner, so my knowledge of the history of AA is limited. Did it not come into existence after the race riots at Watts and Detroit? (Interesting why they did not think of it before). Like many “good intentions”, it soon gets distorted to the advantage of those in power. My feeling is that those who benefited the most from it are not even URM, but white well-to-do females. </p>
<p>For AA to be a business decision, it must be confirmed by money flow. Is there such a history of philanthropy in the URM communities for the elites to justify spending such time and effort? My thinking is that the elites are doing it to avoid having Rev. Al Sharpton and his followers screaming and threatening to “break down the gate”. The Yale-Black Panthers incident is still fresh on their collective mind.</p>
<p>In the grand scheme of things, I doubt students attend elites for the diversity, or even the education, for that matter. If diversity is that important, there would not have been the so-called “white flight” to the suburbs, right? Don’t tell me they suddenly see the light and send their kids to school to soak up diversity that they so sorely missed. </p>
<p>They are mainly there for the brand-to (hopefully) establish future connections, improve employment prospects, and a marriage proposal or two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most historical accounts I’ve seen suggest that President Kennedy pioneered the use of the term “affirmative action” in an executive order about hiring workers for the federal government, </p>
<p>[Affirmative</a> Action History — Infoplease.com](<a href=“http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html]Affirmative”>Affirmative Action History & Timeline (Civil Rights Act, Supreme Court Cases, etc)) </p>
<p>which is before the events you mention. The exact meaning of the phrase has certainly changed over time, and the exact issues considered when applying affirmative action policies have changed too. </p>
<p>I provided the link above just as a convenient first result for affirmative action history from Goodle. I don’t endorse its entire content and note for the record that different historical accounts of affirmative action have different spins, with some broad agreement on some matters of historical fact. </p>
<p>After edit: </p>
<p>Here’s a search result with a different account of affirmative action: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1713[/url]”>http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1713</a></p>
<p>Regarding Canuckguy’s recent post, I am shocked to read yet another post that claims white people cant be trusted, that they are afraid of people of color, and that they use affirmative action to disguise their malevolent intentions. I hear these claims and am reminded of a child throwing a tantrum. My advice to those who harbor such thoughts is this: Please move to a country where you are the minority. Perhaps then your eyes will open. Stay there for several years and then return to the US and tell me how badly the white majority treats minorities in America. </p>
<p>America is a paradise for people of color. In my country, I was an ethnic minority. The ethnic majority there (as in true in most countries) dominated society and made sure people like my family remained poor and uneducated. Through the grace of several white people working in Africa, my family was able to move to America when I was young. Although I was still an ethnic minority and poor, this country allowed our family to achieve whatever we dreamed. Hard work in Africa meant nothing. Hard work in America means dreams being met. In one generation, our family’s lives have been improved 180 degrees. Do you realize how rare this is?</p>
<p>As for you arguments, diversity in the learning environment should not be confused with diversity in the living environment. People of all colors self-segregate when it comes to the living environment. That is true in every country Ive lived or visited. People enjoy living in communities where they identify best. This fact has no implication on affirmative action in education.</p>
<p>Education is a currency that can be spent for a lifetime; the better the university, typically the more currency the education bestows on the student. Affirmative action helps ensure that women and minorities are given opportunities to share in that currency. </p>
<p>Please dont believe that campus life is racially harmonious. Indeed, the self-segregation we see in real life is often duplicated on campus. Racial interaction is, of course, common in the classroom, but most social and living settings tend to be divided along racial lines. </p>
<p>Affirmative action is about opportunity. It is not designed to change human nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So white females hold all the power in the U.S. thanks to AA, and Asian females stand to gain the most by eliminating AA. You go girls! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there’s many people in these colleges who disagree more about the colleges’ practices than me with affirmative action.</p>
<p>I’m disappointed that so many defenders of the status quo view “holistic” as just a code name for race-conscious admissions. These people don’t care if essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations are included. To them, a process isn’t “holistic” unless it considers race.</p>
<p>Moreover, they often argue that if people don’t like the way things are, they should either go somewhere else or do something about it. Yet, when someone actually tries to do something (ie. Jian Li), that someone is vilified and denounced as a hack with an “agenda.” This is a clear case of Catch-22, where we opponents are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.</p>
<p>What a joke!</p>
<p>“These people don’t care if essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations are included.”</p>
<p>You care only about getting other [pick a color] supremacists into college. ;)</p>
<p>Or am I putting the wrong words into your mouth, too? These people! Also a good joke!</p>
<p>I can provide numerous instances in this thread alone that back my point. You, on the other hand, can’t because you knowingly “[put] the wrong words into [my] mouth.”</p>
<p>Examples as follows:</p>
<p>The elimination of AA, as well as the elimination of holistic admissions not even with regard to AA, will not solve the “overpopulation” problem of applications submitted versus seats available. Anyone who thinks this is just fooling himself.</p>
<p>No one here is advocating for the elimination of holistic admissions, merely the elimination of racial preferences. Yet epiphany felt compelled to add the underlined part to her post.</p>
<p>They’d rather define their own standards of admission<a href=“which%20they%20feel%20entitled%20to%20define”>/u</a>, and then “prove” that an entire (combined) group is systematically excluded or severely reduced in representation based on standards they have created.</p>
<p>Who would have known that asking for race to be removed from consideration is tantamount to “defin[ing] [our] own standards of admission”?</p>
<p>Those who don’t like holistic consideration can apply to state schools, those who do to private schools (it’s more based on averages, not so black and white as that).</p>
<p>Hey, who wrote this? Argh, the name escapes my mind at this moment. Anyway, again, no one here is against holistic admissions. Many here, however, are against racial preferences. The topic of our disdain has yet again been misinterpreted. Ah, now I remember who wrote this: it was you. Thanks for proving my point!</p>
<p>A college or U is this country is not merely a random collection of test-qualified individuals. And again, it doesn’t matter. If there were no qualitative evaluation of class balance, and students were merely admitted on quantitative measures, hundreds of high-scoring individuals (Asians, whites, more) would not be admitted due to lack of space.</p>
<p>Sigh. No one is advocating for a Chinese / British / French-style system of “one test determines your life,” but our attempts at clarification fall on deaf ears.</p>
<p>I mean, seriously, vossron, answer me this: Why is it that highly intelligent and well-educated persons such as yourself cannot grasp such a simple concept as opposing racial preferences does not mean opposing holistic admissions? Why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak for everyone, but, yes, I am in favor of holistic admission processes, but would like people in the United States and all over the world to get past the practice of classifying people by Procrustean race classifications rather than treating people as individuals. It’s very possible for a college to have a holistic admission process without inquiring about race–and indeed some colleges do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[That’s</a> what got me started on this issue](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063187909-post61.html]That’s”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063187909-post61.html) four decades ago.</p>