<p>monstor, every category we create will have these type of exceptions. This would be true regardless of the category created. It’s just the nature of the beast. It sucks, but it’s reality.</p>
<p>Post 240 (and 239):</p>
<p>Does no one on this thread understand that S.E. Asians are, hello, URM’s? (Treated as such, for admissions)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The methodologies, the missions, the targets, the standards, differ from one another, despite their being an overall similar philosophy of admissions among them all. Those differences, combined with both minor and major variations in the applicant pools, can result in quite different-looking permutations and combinations. Amherst, for example, uses a different approach than certain U’s, yet Amherst is a top (highly desirable, reachy) LAC. MIT has different goals and approaches than Harvard. Stanford has certain geographical considerations others do not. When you have worked on the inside of admissions offices, and when you have read widely, you learn a great deal about these differences – whether or not a student prefers to dismiss known, publicly accessible information or not. (The information IS from admissions officers. That is entirely the point.) I’ve collected my information from a period spanning 15 years. Hmmm. I wonder how long you’ve been collecting yours.</p>
<p>
They cannot be treated as such because it is impossible for SE Asians to identify themselves specifically as such. They are lumped together with the usual ORM applicants under the Asian umbrella. Thus you are wrong; they do not receive boosts from affirmative action. You may be thinking of pacific islanders.</p>
<p>No, I am not thinking of Pacific Islanders, and I am not wrong. I understand thoroughly the limitations of the categories, well elucidated elsewhere on this and earlier threads – and by anyone who has spent 2 seconds reviewing a college application. That is not where most URM’s restrict the information supplied. There are plenty of opportunities to provide more information in the application, essay, interview, etc. as to one’s personal origins – unless, of course, one wants to hide it or attempt to hide it, which anyone is free to do. And an awful lot of URM’s do in fact self-identify in some manner when applying.</p>
<p>“it is impossible for SE Asians to identify themselves”</p>
<p>Please give adcoms more credit; SE Asian surnames are quite obvious.</p>
<p>“Thus you are wrong” ;)</p>
<p>This threat is not only interesting at a legal and political level, but it also gives one a fascinating glimpse into human behaviour as well.</p>
<p>I am not surprised to see posters take position in line with what I see as their personal best interest. That is what I expect most people to do. What is more interesting is to see what strategy they use to defend their positions, and how consistent that position is over time.</p>
<p>The opponents of AA seem to focus on the inconsistent application of logic or the law of their opponents, while the supporters are using what I called the “catch me if you can” strategy- playing chameleon, keeping their position fluid. An example is the change, over time, from “URM are only given a tip” to “URM only do less well on standardized tests” to “URM only do less well on standardized tests and GPA” to “elites all have different criteria for admission”.</p>
<p>To me, a good hypothesis should be simple and elegant. It should also be robust enough to stand up to challenges. Furthermore, it should be “testable”, based on data, and internally consistent. So far, I have not seen a supporter who can come up with such a hypothesis, sorry to say.</p>
<p>A longitudinal look at how posters “change” over time may also be very revealing on this never ending debate.</p>
<p>For what its worth anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only in the UC system do you have a separate category for them. It seems unlikely that the rest of the colleges would bother to make a separate category for them, as colleges haven´t done so for African-born blacks. Because of that, I hardly think these colleges are trying to make sure there´s proportional representation for racial subgroups.</p>
<p>(Post 247): And it’s not worth much. </p>
<p>All-knowing as you apparently believe yourself to be, my position has not changed over time, nor is it “chameleon.” You may accuse the various college admissions committees of being chameleon-like, but not me. There is a difference between changing a position over time and beginning with a policy (the committee) that judges on a variety of factors. </p>
<p>College applicants who are not being chosen to fill a specific sports team need or a Development opportunity (past & future donations) are evaluated as students. But the measures of what kind of students they are, are both objective and subjective. Since the research those schools have engaged in has shown an extremely strong correlation with certain categories of subjective criteria (such as levels of achievement in outside extracurriculars) and college-level and career-level achievement, subjective measures play a larger part in admissions than in colleges outside the U.S. And there are differences between privates as a whole and publics as a whole, not to mention variations within each of these subgroups.</p>
<p>It’s about different missions, different assumptions, different goals and different educational systems. It’s not uniform, not predictable, and not just for reasons alluded to, but also because a primary goal is to accept a varied class each year. Thus, both academic and nonacademic factors come into play. And regarding different missions and different educational systems among countries, the full participation of the country as an important part of that is very pertinent to admissions policies in U.S. higher institutions.</p>
<p>The system, like democracy itself, is imperfect, but it is what it is. Our family has a really good friend who, as a high school student attending an insanely rigorous private high school (which she was definitely up to) decided against what some would describe as the “mania” of U.S. college admisisons. She thought it ridiculous and time-wasting to extend herself throughout the prolonged admissions cycle, with a zillion essays and what-not. (Can’t say I blame her!) While her senior yr. classmates were joining the crowd, competing with each other for top U.S. schools, she went the Canadian route. Finding the 2-page or whatever application exceedingly straightforward, she applied and was accepted to one of the standout Canadian U’s, graduated from there a few years ago, and is probably done with grad school there or here as well.</p>
<p>No one is forced to subscribe to our system. Our family almost went the route of the above family, not out of disgust, but because we were anxious about the “leadership” factor, until we understood how varied that manifestation is, and how non-universally expected it is of colleges. (There are all kinds of non-leaderly, socially awkward students at Ivies, for example, of all racial and ethnic categories.) In the end we did not go the alternate route, but I can understand why many others might. </p>
<p>There are also heavily quantitatively measured college applications to various privates and publics in various U.S. locales, where excellent professors and programs are located. The idea that just a dozen entities in this vast country will make or break the future of any student is preposterous. Take a look at some very successful business people, academics, and scientists. Very many of them never went near an “Elite” U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems or not, colleges who do know, due to student self-identification in one of the many ways already discussed – including but not limited to surnames and personal interviews --do in fact treat them not “as a separate category” but within the URM category.</p>
<p>Further edit on my post 249:</p>
<p>As to “personal best interest,” our family is Caucasian Anglo, hardly URM, and in a region of the country that gets no preferred treatment when it comes to elite admissions.</p>
<p>I will say again that the system is imperfect. But I would prefer to see greater representation of the entire country, and an interesting, balanced class, than either the “ancient” system of the early 1960’s and before (when privilege and WASP origins “qualified” the student, and the campuses were astoundingly homogeneous), or an insane do-or-die competition based strictly on quantitative measures, where those with the best opportunities from birth will determine the make-up of the class (back to privilege again).</p>
<p>This “supporter” simply wants more racial diversity on campus than there would be without AA, because I think it’s good for races to get to know each other better. But I’m open to hypotheses and data that says I’m wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As tokenadult has repeatedly mentioned, admissions officers are discouraged from inferring origin from surnames.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you cite any sources to back your claims? Or are insults the best you have?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that William Kidder did not criticize Espenshade and Chung’s methodology and results. He only criticized their conclusion that Asians would be the biggest winners if affirmative action were abolished.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that the Office of Civil Rights did not dismiss Jian Li’s complaint as trivial and that Li used Espenshade and Chung’s paper to strengthen his complaint.</p>
<p>Post 253:</p>
<p>That may be true, fab – I don’t deny that – but discouragement does not mean that an ad officer will “not think of that pink elephant in the room.” (So to speak.) Reminded by a surname, it will be difficult to “forget” that or “not draw assumptions,” and particularly when there are likely the inevitable other reminders of personal orgiin: essays, personal interviews, even e.c.'s and work experience (“tutored Vietnamese immigrants,” “worked in my family’s Vietnamese restaurant,” etc.)</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I repeat my earlier question. Does ending affirmative action result in a “tiny” negative impact on diversity, or does it result in a “severe unbalance”?</p>
<p>I’d like an answer, but I remind you that you should be careful when you say “The goal is balance…” Don’t forget that Justice O’Connor wrote that “…outright racial balancing…is patently unconstitutional” (Grutter). Maybe it’s time for you to eat crow and admit that Canuckguy is right regarding positions changing over time.</p>
<p>“Strictly on quantitative measures”? Look, I’m not advocating that. Just grant me that much, OK? I don’t think I’m asking for a lot here.</p>
<p>Re #255</p>
<p>If it’s difficult not to ignore surnames or worse “draw assumptions,” then hey - that’s a pretty strong case for making admissions “name-blind.”</p>
<p>Assign each applicant a unique identifier. Let the applicant be admitted on the basis of his quantitative performance AND on subjective criteria including but not limited to writing ability, talents and potential for further improvement, and recommendations. These “assumptions” have no place in admissions, so I say keep them out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so. See post #1 in the thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…or maybe it’s time for you to stop claiming that posters change their views to suit the circumstances, if that’s what you’re implying. “Eating crow” refers to one’s own position or situation or statement, not to those of others. If your implication is that colleges have changed positions, or courts have changed positions, that’s another thing. But I represent neither colleges nor courts, not yet anyway. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do you have proof of this?</p>