"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 5

<p>Okay i have a question, i am hispanic but american indian in race. ive heard that if you check american indian in the common app but dont have an enrollment number then they dont consider you as such. is that true?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As indicated in the FAQ post higher up in the thread, each college gets to decide how it considers race or ethnicity, if at all, as an admission factor, subject to the federal Constitution and to federal and state laws. At some colleges race should make no difference at all. At many colleges that would actively recruit American Indian students, there are attempts to verify that a person who claims to be an American Indian has federal tribal registration. All you can do is apply and see what happens. </p>

<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>

<p>United States Supreme Court cases on race as a factor in admission to state universities illustrate what some colleges have done over the years. </p>

<p>Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978) </p>

<p>[Regents</a> of the University of California v. Bakke, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/]Regents”>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/) </p>

<p>ruled on the admission practices of the University of California Davis medical school in the 1970s. The holding of the 5-4 divided court was that Bakke’s constitutional rights had been violated by the UC Davis practice of having places in the class reserved for minority applicants and ordered Bakke’s admission, while the 5-4 dictum (by a different combination of justices) written by Justice Lewis Powell suggested that future cases might find other patterns of consideration race in higher education admission at state universities to be constitutionally permissible. </p>

<p>Two subsequent cases, decided by the Supreme Court on the same day, define current standards of constitutional review of college admission practices. </p>

<p>Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)</p>

<p>[Grutter</a> v. Bollinger, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/]Grutter”>{{meta.fullTitle}}) </p>

<p>Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) </p>

<p>[Gratz</a> v. Bollinger, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument](<a href=“{{meta.fullTitle}}”>{{meta.fullTitle}})</p>

<p>singing the same old song, fabrizio. (Same old repetitious oversung song.)</p>

<p>Jian Li =/= racial PREFERENCES. Never did. </p>

<p>College admissions which include varieties of races, ethnicities, & nationalities are not preferring any over any else, but including all. </p>

<p>Really, some people need to move on in life, start living life, start realizing the equal opportunities among peer schools such as Yale, and stop ignoring the fact that masses of Asian students accepted to Princeton AND Yale every year turn those schools down for Harvard.</p>

<p>Hmmmm.</p>

<p>But yes, continue with your self-deceit.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t mind being repetitious if it means correcting blatant misinformation. </p>

<p>The most intellectually dishonest statement used by the defenders of the status quo is denying that racial preferences exist. Need I repeat the results of the Espenshade and Chung study? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>Li’s complaint was never about being “bitter.” It was always about questioning the legitimacy of racial preferences, a topic that some people hold with such regard that they instantly dismiss any and all skeptics as rabble-rousers.</p>

<p>Well, then, since some posters do not mind repetition, and since other posters apparently have weaker & more selective memories than some of us, no one will mind my repeating the facts of the applicant’s underqualification by Princeton University standards:</p>

<p>Princeton answers to Jian Li claims </p>

<hr>

<p>

</p>

<p>One actually need only go to the CDS, which states somewhere between 9 and 11 Important to Very Important factors in admission – depending on the U in question. Like other selective universities, Princeton does not rank order which among those multiple factors are ever <em>more</em> important, which <em>less</em> important. They don’t rank order not because it’s some secret, but because one or several areas of impressive strength can outweigh a different area of slightly less strength – even within the same category of consideration. A student amazingly strong in 8 areas but marginally weaker in one may easily be considered more valuable to that university, that year, than someone fabulous in 2 areas and marginally weaker in the other 7. That’s the way admissions works. Not your system. Their system.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m calling this out as a personal insult in violation of the Terms of Service here </p>

<p>[College</a> Discussion - FAQ: College Discussion - TOS & FAQ](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item]College”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item) </p>

<p>and remind all here to express disagreements about facts, but not about participants. All participants who follow the Terms of Service are welcome here. Any person in a free country is “entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts,” in a saying attributed to a late politician who studied this issue. It doesn’t help people find out what the facts are to be gratuitously insulting.</p>

<p>About the link in post #26, the specific link kindly given with the long quotation from the Princeton dean of admission appears to be a dead link, but as I Google up a phrase from the text, that source appears to be much less recent than the most recent report I have seen about the issue </p>

<p>[Department</a> of Education expands inquiry into Jian Li bias case - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/]Department”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/) </p>

<p>from a Princeton-based source. </p>

<p>Oh, through that Google search I think I found the correct link for the 2006 Daily Princetonian story, </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/11/30/16798/[/url]”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/11/30/16798/&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>and, yes, that is interesting to read but not the last word on the subject. </p>

<p>It would, of course, be interesting to hear from any participant here who has a still more recent source with a report on the conclusion of the requested Department of Education Office of Civil Rights inquiry.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I cannot agree more. And indeed, I have related and relayed the facts of his (the complainant’s) underqualifications from the voice of the Dean of Admissions of the University in question. Can’t get closer to the source than that.</p>

<p>Not discriminated against. Under-qualified.</p>

<p>wait… i do not want to read the whole thread sorry… but to get something clear… tokenadult and epiphany are you saying that colleges do not prefer certain races? I always heard that being an URM was an advantage… am i wrong?</p>

<p>This is just a thought that was run by me today.
I am fully white, both parents are white, and all of my grandparents are white. I’m a natural born U.S. resident. However, I am (and have been my entire life) a fully legal New Zealand citizen. Does this mean that on college apps I can apply Pacific Islander? Technically speaking, my ancestry is from New Zealand, and despite being all white, are technically from the Pacific Islands.</p>

<p>Anyway, as silly as the idea is, it could give me a significant boost, so just wondering if it is at all possible.</p>

<p>The question is about race/ethnicity, so no, you cannot honestly apply as a Pacific Islander.</p>

<p>don’t get carried away. New Zealand is technically a Pacific Island and New Zealand has a Maori population but let’s face it. You are white probably of British ancestry.</p>

<p>Haha I didn’t think so, good thing I wasn’t riding on that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My view on the factual issue is that most colleges make quite unclear what their actual policy is, not specifying how much they prefer, in what way, one kind of applicant over another. But I will note for the record that when the University of Michigan recently changed its admission system not to take into account the “race” of applicants, because of a voter initiative in that state, the university officials in charge of admission the year the change occurred said in news media interviews that they “applied two sets of standards” to applicants admitted before and after the change. That may or may not be the situation at any other university today, and that may or may not have been the situation at other universities in the past. </p>

<p>I expect epiphany will speak for herself on what her view is of the answer to your question.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>(Your question was merged into the FAQ and discussion thread in the interest of accuracy.) You already know the answer to your question: you are white. The federal definition of “Pacific Islander” </p>

<p>[Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000](<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm]Black”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm) </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>excludes white New Zealanders but surely includes Maoris.</p>

<p>It all started as classificating people in blacks, indians/natives and whites. Then, the color-denominated label was dropped just for the blacks, who became African-American, while whites continued to be… whites (instead of Caucaso-European).</p>

<p>Then, the latino mess came around, because it is not an ethnic classification but a origin one. Therefore, Spaniards and Portugueses are not Latinos for AA purposes, but people of Spanish and Portuguese descente born in South and Central America are. Of course, one could be black, yellow or white and Latino, so they introduced a higher layer of classification (see in the Census tables: first they segretate - statistically - Latinos from Non-Latinos, then among the non-latinos you could be black, white, Native American).</p>

<p>Now it came this confusion about Pacific Islander.</p>

<p>It seems to be a prejudice against the whites who build the US at least as much as any other “group”: if your ancestry-related group came to US and became as a whole more rich more quickly (Germans, Italians, Polish and, of course, British), you’re white and not entitled any preference on AA basis. If it was subject of discrimination as much as, say, Italian-Americans, but if such group did not prosper, then you have a category for your own.</p>

<p>Why people from Spanish descent born in Spain are whites, and people from Spanish descent born from other immigrants to Central/South America are Latinos? Why there is no such specific category for people from European descent from Southern Europe, whose nationals were discriminated (Italians, Croatians, Hungarians) in US, are labeled as whites and not, say, Southern-European Americans?</p>

<p>It just pathetic how different criteria are used to “classify” and sort people around in US. Is it one’s skin color? Is it place of birth? Is it economic status? Collective guilty for slavery or whatsoever?</p>

<p>This country has done many, many things right and is the best example of success earned through hard work and dedication. However, this ethnic classifications are becoming more and more a joke. They should be abolished altogether, everyone would either American or alien (legal of ilegal depending on the case, of course), end of discussion.</p>

<p>Good job of moderating.</p>

<p>From my perspective, there should not even be a question. The answer is that obvious.</p>

<p>Just show you how far the ruling class will go to maintain privilege for their descendants.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are correct as a historical matter that the Hispanic or Latino ethnic category, overlaid over the federal categories of “races,” came later historically than United States laws that made distinctions by “race.” (I can remember when the Hispanic category didn’t exist–not in law and not in many people’s minds.) But what is interestingly odd about the category is that people from Spain are included, as well as people from Spanish imperial territories, while people from Portugal are excluded, even people from Portuguese imperial territories such as Brazil. </p>

<p>[Persons</a> of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000](<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68188.htm]Persons”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68188.htm) </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Re #26</p>

<p>“Many others had far better qualifications,…” != “underqualification.” If you believe otherwise, then you must also believe the following:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Yale is significantly inferior to Princeton and is not a peer institute because Yale accepted Mssr. Li in 2006.</p></li>
<li><p>Filing a civil rights complaint against Princeton University is a bona fide qualification in the eyes of Harvard that can get you a transfer admission.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The first is a farcical consequence, but the second holds much more serious implications, as I alluded to earlier.</p>