<p>And if the school doesn’t have those categories?</p>
<p>A private school will usually count a bi-racial person in the category that makes the school look more diverse.</p>
<p>You can check whatever box (and omit whatever box) that you wish to, however.</p>
<p>
It depends. I don’t want an artificially diverse atmosphere that is only diverse in the sense that is diverse in terms of skin color and is overwhelmingly composed of the upper-class. That’s not to say I would want colleges to be completely dominated by Asian-Americans and Caucasians; I still would appreciate a considerable minority population, but I think by far the most important aspect of diversity is the socioeconomic side of diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s all specified in the federal regulation on the subject, </p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Department of Education; Office of the Secretary; Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education [OS]](<a href=“http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html]U.S”>http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html) </p>
<p>cited in the thread-opening post of this FAQ thread (into which your question was merged) and again cited in some of the subsequent posts here. As of this application season, applicants are asked (as enrolled students may be asked after enrollment) to answer a yes-no question about Hispanic ethnicity and then are asked to answer a “select one or more” question about the federally specified “race” categories. Colleges are given detailed instructions about how to report aggregate results based on these self-reported data, and students remain permitted to decline to answer the questions at all.</p>
<p>Thanks! I did read most of this thread, but I didn’t know the regulation extended to cover that area. My eternal gratitude for clearing that up.</p>
<p>EDIT: So, upon reading that report, I’ve discovered that there is going to be a new “biracial” category, come the new year. Would it be ethical/advisable to list my ethnicity as only Native Alaskan if I do not have a matching last name, in order to maintain minority status?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I checked the regulation, </p>
<p>[U.S</a>. Department of Education; Office of the Secretary; Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education [OS]](<a href=“http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html]U.S”>http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html) </p>
<p>and see that the category for college reporting to the federal government is listed this way </p>
<p><a href=“7”>quote=Department of Education</a> Two or more races.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>which is ever so slightly different from “biracial.” </p>
<p>I don’t see that there are any implications for individual applicants from this. IF and only if you are really an Alaskan Native, you can list that “race” along with any other that fits you, or you can choose to list none at all. What each college does with applicant-reported ethnicity varies from college to college anyway, and the federal reporting requirements don’t really change at all how colleges decide to use, or not use, ethnicity as an admission factor. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>
<p>So, are we at the point where being multiracial is becoming an admissions advantage?</p>
<p>^ As an advantage over whites, we’ve probably been there for a while, if that’s what you mean.</p>
<p>“I think by far the most important aspect of diversity is the socioeconomic side of diversity.”</p>
<p>We had that, back when top schools began to admit non-well-to-do whites, but still no non-whites. I think race matters more than money in terms of fostering diversity. I think there are more significant cultural differences between races than between dollars.</p>
<p>Some top schools (how many depends on your definition of “top”) have been admitting nonwhite students since before anyone reading CC was alive.</p>
<p>Yes, but I was speculating that they admitted non-wealthy whites before they admitted non-whites. Waaaay back when. Maybe it depends on the school.</p>
<p>Well it’s certainly possible, vossron, but it would surprise me. It’s my perception that diversity was defined racially before it was defined economically, by the Ivies, anyway (and before that circle was widened).</p>
<p>I mean so far back that the term “diversity” had not yet been invented, even though it might have unknowingly been practiced. Harvard is 373 years old!</p>
<p>
I disagree. Cultural differences today are largely fostered by location and socioeconomic status. Race does play a small factor into cultural differences but the reality is that cultural differences between races is caused often by a correlation of location and socioeconomic status and isn’t directly caused by ethnicity.</p>
<p>Logically, socioeconomic AA will serve as an advantage to those coveted URMs more than anyone else. I will reference this once again:</p>
<p>[News:</a> Testing for ‘Mismatch’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/20/mismatch)</p>
<p>The minorities applying to Duke are, generally, poorer than the Caucasians applying to Duke (interestingly enough, the Asian population applying to Duke pretty much matches the Latino population applying to Duke). If socioeconomic AA fails to serve as an adequate way of producing a healthy URM population at top schools, then there are clearly other issues at hand that account for the disparity between ethnic groups other than socioeconomic stature (in fact, the Asian/Latino comparison is pretty damning evidence indicating that there are indeed other significant factors). </p>
<p>And so, once again, I shall pose the following questions: should racial affirmative action be the solution for resolving this disparity? Or is it unjust to do so when the causes behind these differences should not so easily be forgiven? If one of those significant factors accounting for the disparity is, for example, work ethic, why should affirmative action serve to combat these differences when work ethic is universally a core element in terms of college admissions? And what happens when there is a gray area of causes, such as motivation (or lack thereof) from parents?</p>
<p>
So with the biases towards multiracial applicants, an applicant who is half-Chinese and half-Caucasian would be subject to an admissions advantage over an applicant who is merely Caucasian? There lies the ambiguity.</p>
<p>^ I would guess yes. When AA is applied, non-whites have an advantage over whites, on average, so I would expect half-whites to likewise have an advantage over whites (when the multi-racial/bi-racial box is checked, or when racial issues are apparent from other aspects of the application). This follows from the same reasons colleges practice AA (of those that do): Trying to be more attractive by being diverse, and/or by trying to more closely match the makeup of the general population, and/or by doing the right thing, as they see it. I’m sure there are other reasons as well.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is racist. </p>
<p>Regardless of the standard PC justifications of “diversity” for it, that’s what it comes down to in the end. What isn’t racist if determining the qualification of a person for an opportunity, especially one so crucial as the chance to go to a college, is determined with the color of their skin as a factor? What isn’t stereotyping if assuming that racial diversity equals cultural diversity and diversity of interests isn’t? So every black person or every Asian person automatically is similar to each and every other black or Asian person who checks that little box, in a fundamental way? That is the opposite of holistic, it is the opposite of open minded, and allowing it to exist only encourages each ad officer’s own prejudices, subconscious or conscious, regarding race to color their judgments of a candidate’s other attributes. And the ironic thing-- let me be un PC and blunt here–is that if affirmative action discriminated against blacks instead of for them, the PC police would all over it. It would be dead on arrival in today’s political climate. And that would be right, and I would support that completely.</p>
<p>Admissions should be completely race blind. I wonder when that will happen?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is only one acceptable rationale for affirmative action in higher education: promoting diversity. Trying to “more closely match the makeup of the general population” has never been accepted by the Supreme Court, as it is nothing more than a disguised quota.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the way I read the Supreme Court cases too.</p>
<p>I also agree re the Supreme Court, but it’s irrelevant for private schools. I think college affirmative action will cease when their racial makeup more closely matches the general population without it. Yes, it’s racist and quota-driven; I think we all know that.</p>
<p>We can celebrate that we have a variety of schools; in this case, some with affirmative action, some without.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I would be fine with race-blind admissions, I would not be fine with admissions that don’t have some sort of affirmative action. Students from low socioeconomic statuses, less affluent or bad public schools, etc. should not have to compete blindly against students who go to Exeter and whose family earns $400,000. I don’t care if it’s fair; it should be level. Some students just do not have the opportunities that other students have. While a dyslexic student should do his best to overcome his abilities, if he has a 3.8 and a non-dyslexic student has a 4.0, it would be hard to discount the former student’s effort and ability in the face of the 4.0.</p>
<p>The problem is that affirmative action will never be socioeconomically based. Admitting low-income students costs colleges a lot of money. As such, colleges are allowed to reject students from low-income homes because of money. This seems “fair” because otherwise the colleges would run into the ground. Yet if colleges reject a white student for the sake of diversity, it’s an outrage on CC. Why is money more important than “diversity”?</p>
<p>If socioeconomic affirmative action were implemented, we’d be having the same debate. Middle and upper class students would still feel “shunted” from their “spots” at schools because of kids who “aren’t as qualified” but who are low-income. Upper and middle class students would be angry because they would be “subsidizing” the education of low-income students (although this is something I don’t really understand; every one of us is “subsidizing” the defense of some idiot who murders someone and who gets a lawyer, etc.). The debate would be that people shouldn’t be judged by how much money their parents have; can’t a low-income student just make as many opportunities for him or herself as a middle class student?</p>
<p>Affirmative action is the wrong answer to the right question. Diversity is geographically and socioeconomically based (everyone has “different interests”, it’s about different viewpoints and experiences). I am not so offended by Affirmative Action because I don’t believe it’s doing nearly as much damage as students and parents on CC have decided its doing. Yes, I don’t like that the race card is being played. I don’t like that the athleticism card gets played, either. That’s how college admissions works right now. There is probably a better way, but I don’t know what the alternative is or how it’s going to work.</p>