<p>
</p>
<p>That would be the correct format for undergraduate applications too, under the new federal regulation. </p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Those are interesting examples of questions attempting to identify students with meaningful diversity factors other than ethnicity.</p>
<p>^Why do colleges ask that Hispanic question? I don’t really get it.</p>
<p>Colleges ask about Hispanic ethnicity the way they do because of the federal regulation mentioned in the first post in this thread.</p>
<p>Obviously they can by ppl’s last names… at least in general terms.
like Spanish or Asian last names are too obvious.</p>
<p>See the FAQ: </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172691-post14.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172691-post14.html</a> </p>
<p>And consider that [many</a> great colleges enroll many students who are “race unknown”](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html]many”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063172559-post8.html) to the college.</p>
<p>Which colleges this year have made clear a commitment to student diversity in their public information meetings?</p>
<p>Another poster spoke of her daughters’ unwillingness to attend a university that was 90% white. These are truly some of the most absurd statements I have ever read.</p>
<p>Why is it absurd that a student of color doesn’t want to attend a school that’s 90% white? Maybe she wants to go somewhere that more adequately reflects the actual racial makeup of our country, which is only about 65% white at present.</p>
<p>That’s a truism that applies to everyone, including people of color. Indeed, the only open racism I’ve witnessed in NYC over the last few years has been by people of color.</p>
<p>Live in NYC a little longer, hon. I grew up in NYC. I love the city and most days I feel very comfortable, and it’s such a racial melange of people. But it’s terribly inaccurate to say that racism doesn’t happen and isn’t perpetrated by white people.</p>
<p>The truth is that we are to blame for our problems, whether we are black, brown, or yellow. No one can keep us down without our permission and assistance.</p>
<p>Pick up a history book and read about the history of black people in the United States, beginning from the time when most of them were brought over here (in the 1500s-1700s as enslaved persons), through the Civil War, the nadir of American race relations (period between 1890-1940s), the Civil Rights Movement, and more recent historical developments in race relations in the 1970s and 1980s. Then read some sociology. And then come back and say that no one can keep anyone else down without their sanction. The whole of human history stands to prove you wrong; it’s only a very recent development in human history that every person is a person of equal worth and deserves to live free.</p>
<p>Tokenadult doesn’t bring up a good point. When we talk about underrepresentation we’re talking about in comparison to the makeup of the American public. Right now African Americans make up about 15% of the population, Hispanics about 15%, Asian Americans about 4%, white people about 65%. That’s what most people are comparing this to, and individual state populations as well (in the case of the UC system - I think CA might be 12% Asian but UCLA is something like 60% Asian).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a clear and definitive answer. Unfortunately, some are unwilling to respond in such a fashion and would prefer that these terms remain shrouded in opacity.</p>
<p>^ Not I.</p>
<p>I said in an earlier post that indeed that is the traditional context of “under”-represented: relative to percentages of those groups in the US population at large. However, when objectively one looks at diversity mission statements, or listens to them, from ad reps (K-12, in addition to college, btw), those reps do not necessarily stay within such numbers. Some frankly say they are looking for an X level of URM’s in general – for example, they will say, one-third URM’s, one-third other minority groups collectively, one-third majority (Caucasian). And that has been true of such institutions whether those numbers over- or under-represent those same groups in the general population.</p>
<p>I am not the author or creator of opacity, nor do I subscribe to opacity as a concept. I have reported what has been directly reported to me by such representatives-- namely, such diversity goals change with the particular student body make-ups year to year – that in general they have goals to increase URM representation if that still has not reached barely critical mass, let alone a particular target that has remained a steady policy of that institution. </p>
<p>Most schools & colleges do not have rigid goals, such as a three-way split described above. In general, they want a mix, but will not compromise significantly to obtain that mix, and that’s why there are no set goals: if only 2% of URM’s who apply can do the work comfortably, that’s your URM population for that school. Schools who have abundant high-level applications from a wide mix of backgrounds are more in control of the proportions they admit, but there’s another thing to consider – a fact which those who are severely focused on race as a grand conspiracy fail to see. That is the undeniable economic fact that the very top U’s remain in fierce competition for the top minds of the country, and those top minds are their currency – the currency by which they maintain visibility, rankings, reputation, and attractiveness to outstanding faculty. There is no such thing as race or ethnicity driving the results of college admissions. Ultimately what drives it are economic factors – the marketplace of competition within those businesses for commodities called brains (and talent).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose what one sees locally varies from region to region, but where are the national figures found?</p>
<p>Ah, then it’s settled: the benchmark is “US population at large.” Great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What percentage constitutes “critical mass”? What percentage constitutes a “particular target”? I greatly admire Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq. for somehow managing to convince Justice O’Connor that “critical mass” is not a quota when it so obviously is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m taking you mean this?</p>
<p>[Demographics</a> of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_US]Demographics”>Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Hey guys, I was just wondering if Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese are all grouped as Asians. It’s harder, in theory, to get into colleges for Asians since they all have high scores. </p>
<p>Let’s say 1000 Asian student applications were sent. </p>
<p>50% Korean
40% Chinese
10% Vietnamese</p>
<p>Would you have a better chance of getting in if you’re Vietnamese since it is the least represented and colleges want a college as diverse as possible?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>“I was just wondering if Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese are all grouped as Asians.”</p>
<p>They are, but there may be very slight differences in the application of affirmative action.</p>
<p>Asians are Asians. Most colleges don’t bother breaking down which nationality or ethnicity you fall under.</p>
<p>Sucks for the Mongolians.</p>
<p>Aren’t Indians in there too?</p>
<p>Most colleges and U’s with a serious commitment to wide diversity consider Vietnamese as URM’s (Southeast Asians), rather than grouping them with other Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the federal definitions, students who are not citizens or permanent residents are in one category, whatever their ethnicity, and students in the ethnicities you mention, if United States citizens or permanent residents, are “Asian.” All applicants to colleges have the choice of not marking any ethnicity or race on the standardized federal questionnaire, as the first few posts on this FAQ thread make clear. </p>
<p>Does anyone have any links to any public statement by any college about the college’s policy regarding distinguishing some countries of origin from others in a single federal “race” category. I’ve seen college application forms that ask about more detailed categories, but I’ve not recently seen a college statement about which subcategory is treated how in the admission process. Links, anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is true, there would not be so many Jewish Nobel Laureates claiming CUNY as their alma mater. </p>
<p>Looking at it from another angle, how did schools like Brown and Duke build their reputation over the last 20 years?</p>
<p>[Education</a> | projo.com | The Providence Journal](<a href=“The Providence Journal: Local News, Politics & Sports in Providence, RI”>The Providence Journal: Local News, Politics & Sports in Providence, RI)</p>
<p>This strategy works well in Britain as well. St. Andrew became very popular after Prince Williams went there.</p>
<p>This is not a conspiracy. It is simple unadulterated power politics, cynically applied.</p>