<p>I’d guess that there actually is not a better way; private colleges have been refining their admissions practices for years, decades. The bottom line is that they admit the applicants they want the most, those who best help meet institutional needs, as defined by the schools themselves, each for their own reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and have demonstrated that their goals are to include applicants from every racial background, not exclude some.</p>
<p>Well worth two hours of your time to view this documentary. The next airing is on [September</a> 8th](<a href=“National Geographic TV Shows, Specials & Documentaries”>National Geographic TV Shows, Specials & Documentaries).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^ The human family is both united and differentiated in that ultimate unity. The colleges want to reflect the reality of that differentiation, partly so that those differentiated members can indeed remember their common source.</p>
<p>You’re referring to an anthropological reality & concept; whereas the colleges are focused on the real-time social dynamic of a differentiated family relating to one another, both on campus and eventually beyond. They know about the Human Family Tree; they just don’t want one or two branches to dominate in their particular locale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>epiphany, didn’t you say earlier that it’s in my imagination if I “think that changes/reversals in ‘race’ policies will result in extremely different-looking campuses”?</p>
<p>I don’t find these two statements to be consistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find that goal to be offensive as it suggests that without racial preferences, at least one “racial background” will not be included.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t think that’s offensive at all. I think it’s a difficult truth. Due, I believe in part to “culture” but mostly as a result of a lack of resources, few Native Americans from reserves end up in colleges, much less top colleges. Their poor high schools and other factors make it harder for them to get in anywhere; the ability to pay is another story. The same goes for African Americans. While I believe the problem with African Americans and higher education is self-perpetuated, there is also a matter of resources (good schools, money for tuition, etc.). Because of this, those students that actually WANT to break the cycle are hindered in the admissions process - lower test scores, less rigorous schools, less support from the African American community, etc. - and then bewildered when it comes to foot the bill. Remember that many low-income students only have two options: the cheapest community colleges and the most prestigious, generous schools. There isn’t much leeway.</p>
<p>So, for the black and Native American students especially (I can’t speak for Hispanic students), there are many obstacles to overcome. However, I feel that many of the problems (with the exception of Native American students) could be solved or at least improved upon with the implementation of socioeconomic based affirmative action. Most of the symptoms of lagging minorities are actually symptoms of poverty and low-income households, not of minority “culture” or atmosphere. That is a hurdle jumped by the students who really want to succeed, anyway. Socioeconomic affirmative action also aides disadvantaged white and Asian students. Like I said, even if AA were socioeconomically based, we’d be having the same discussion right now. However, since socioeconomic affirmative action is hardly economically feasible (what would be the point of accepting low- and lower-middle-income students if they’re not offered any money?), I don’t think it will ever be implemented.</p>
<p>fabrizio, what I meant is this:</p>
<p>The proportion of URM’s in top U’s is who are not quite as competitive as the other students is very small. It’s small because the U is not going to compromise reputation for diversity; it will seek diversity only when accompanied by excellence and only if there’s been a track record of drive & achievement by the student. Anything else would be too risky. Would risk rankings, would risk attractiveness to professors, attractiveness to prospective students who want to study with capable peers, etc. The top U’s have a huge stake in staying in that top category. </p>
<p>The URM’s accepted include both those who are competitive and some who are not quite as (but still capable of doing the work). So if the U sticks to admitting only those URM’s who are competitive, among that already small subset of applicants, the overall mixture of races, ethnicities, nationalities on that campus will not change by much. The change will not be appreciable. </p>
<p>(I was referring to AA.)</p>
<p>“I’d guess that there actually is not a better way; private colleges have been refining their admissions practices for years, decades. The bottom line is that they admit the applicants they want the most, those who best help meet institutional needs, as defined by the schools themselves, each for their own reasons.”</p>
<p>Well, that’s great. The same thing could be said from back when colleges didn’t admit women. Or only admitted white people. </p>
<p>Clearly more refining is necessary. </p>
<p>And I am all for a holistic evaluation of each student’s educational background as a factor in admissions. Obviously someone from the inner city who’s a first generation college student’s educational achievements come from a totally different perspective than say, or the child of an affluent, highly educated family. But I do NOT think that an affluent, white child from a highly educated family’s achievements is coming from a different perspective than that of an affluent, black child’s or an affluent, Hispanic child’s. I just don’t. </p>
<p>And I think allowing race as a factor at all just encourages ad officer’s stereotypes regarding race to play into the admissions game. Oh, she’s Asian? Another math nerd with no joy for learning. Oh, he’s black? He clearly had to overcome family and friends who didn’t value education to get where he is. When maybe the Asian girl was the only person in her family to ever take calculus, or the black boy’s parents were lawyers who encouraged him all his life to succeed in school. They just don’t KNOW these things, and having race as a handy identifier only encourages them to stereotype based on that one factor. Subconsciously or not.</p>
<p>However, if there has to be affirmative action, I could get behind affirmative action based on first-gen college students, because that really does say something about the challenges the student went through to achieve what they did academically.</p>
<p>Re #128</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if it’s in my imagination if I “think that changes/reversals in ‘race’ policies will result in extremely different-looking campuses” and refusing to admit “underrepresented” minorities who “are not quite as competitive as the other students” will not change the overall mixture by much, then there’s still one key but unanswered question: Why are you supporting affirmative action?</p>
<p>You seem to be telling me that even if affirmative action were abolished (ie. a change in ‘race’ policy), not much will change in terms of diversity. Why keep affirmative action, then?</p>
<p>“Clearly more refining is necessary.”</p>
<p>Everyone else is out of step. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(1) Because some is better than none.
(2) Because when you look at the numbers of non-URMS’s applying vs. admitted, their acceptance rates will not be affected appreciably. (Will not help them to any significance if AA is abolished at the TOP U’s.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Addiction,</p>
<p>While there is some overlap, there are still considerable cultural differences both within various Asian sub-populations, and between those --individually and collectively – vs. Caucasians of the same economic group. Perhaps I see the cultural distinctions more because over the years I’ve had so many close friends of Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese descent. A priority toward education, for example, is not the only feature of the upper-middle-class economic stratum. Among that stratum are differences in value systems, differences that are enriching and important to share in a modern, globally interconnected world.</p>
<p>Because of heavy international exposure as a child (due to my father’s occupation), I expected and valued cultural diversity as a normal factor of life. Because of where my daughters were raised, they have experienced enormous diversity. I do not just mean varieites of races and ethnicities. I mean also, within that, variations among each group: rich, poor, middle-class of each. To them, and to me, diversity means variety. It is not a code word for a heavily URM population. Thus, HBUC’s are not something they would ever be attracted to, regardless of the personalized quality of education offered, level of financial aid, etc. (Extremely little variety in the student body.) Similarly, they were not attracted to colleges & U’s that were 90+% Caucasian, mostly with graduates from suburbia. Not diversity.</p>
<p>Why are these anecdotes of any value? Only because they are typical of those who have grown up in diverse environments who apply to the most selective colleges. You will find that there is a large segment of applicants (I don’t know what percentage) who value & seek diversity – large enough that it matters to those selective colleges, as much of the sought talent comes from those in such environments. In general, both in CC and IRL, I have found that those with the most negative opinion about AA are those with the <em>least</em> diverse experiences before college. I’m not speaking necessarily about anyone on this thread, just those who have opined on the subject and shared what their experiences were. They may have had many interactions with one or more race/ethnicity other than their own, but those experiences were mostly very homogeneous and not necessarily positive. (All working class, all poor, all from the same narrow region of the country, etc.) And limited experience does not necessarily result in an appreciation of that experience; more often, it fosters stereotypes. (“All URM’s have lower SAT scores”; “any URM admitted to a top college must be an AA admit,” etc.)</p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> Because some is better than none.
(2) Because when you look at the numbers of non-URMS’s applying vs. admitted, their acceptance rates will not be affected appreciably. (Will not help them to any significance if AA is abolished at the TOP U’s.)
<a href=“1”>/quote</a> The wrong kind is being used.
(2) I could reference the Princeton AA study again, but I’m sure you know that well and clear, so it would be dishonest of you to claim that AA doesn’t significantly disadvantage Asians.</p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> Because some is better than none.
(2) Because when you look at the numbers of non-URMS’s applying vs. admitted, their acceptance rates will not be affected appreciably. (Will not help them to any significance if AA is abolished at the TOP U’s.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some of what? If you mean “some affirmative action is better than no affirmative action,” I couldn’t disagree more. You’ve now twice implied that ending affirmative action would have no significant impact on campus diversity. If that is the case, then I completely fail to see how some is better than none because there would be no difference between “some” and “none”; you get roughly the same campus diversity either way.</p>
<p>Of course, the “some” here could be referring to something else, in which case I request further clarification.</p>
<p>^ No. I never said it would have “no” impact. I said it would have a minor impact. But to answer your question, that minor impact is, in the U’s eyes, a big impact, since so few black, Hispanic, Filipino, and southeast Asian scorers are <em>as</em> competitive, merely stat-wise, as non-URM’s are. They would get some of these candidates in the wealthier subset, and since some CC’ers regularly whine about how “unfair” it is that wealthy or upper-middle-class URM’s get admitted via AA, it shouldn’t bother those same students (who claim it should really be “all about socioeconomic opportunities instead”) that the U often gets a two-fer in such admits, or a 3-fer:<br>
(1) strong enough in the academic categories to do well in demanding, grade-deflated U’s with extremely capable, carefully selected peers, and where there are often rigorous requirements such as full distribution requirements + long undergrad research theses to submit’
(2) URM
(3) deprived economically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t you enlighten us, then, and let us know, with your vast life experience and your comprehensive knowledge of college admissions, including inside knowledge of the applications being submitted, what is the “right kind” of AA?</p>
<p>Re #136</p>
<p>I did not attribute “no impact” to you; I wrote “no significant impact.”</p>
<p>I still don’t know what you meant by “…some is better than none,” and I still don’t know how you reconcile the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ending affirmative action (ie. a change/reversal in ‘race’ policy) will not result in extremely different-looking campuses than what we have today.</p></li>
<li><p>Affirmative action is still necessary.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Unless I’ve grossly misunderstood you, which is quite possible, you seem to be suggesting that affirmative action has at most a minimal impact on campus diversity. If that’s the case, then there’s absolutely NO POINT in supporting affirmative action because the race-blind alternative results in similar diversity but without racial sensitivity issues.</p>
<p>I don’t think I am being obscure, but I’ll repeat myself nevertheless.</p>
<p>There is, indeed, a tiny positive impact on the variety of the campus experience for any particular student interested in such variety, on keeping AA vs. not keeping AA. What I was referring to earlier about no “significant” impact is that CC’ers constantly come onto these boards and engage in 100+ page protestations about how supposedly they as individuals or a particular group as a group, will benefit <em>significantly</em> from the abandonment of AA. That’s not what would happen. What would happen is (1) more aggressive outreach to already advantaged URM’s (including internationals); (2) and even more regional & socioeconomic diversity than currently; (3) and possibly a few additional admits among upper-middle-class Asians and Caucasians. To obtain what the U considers a healthy mix (so that they can continue to attract those who want a healthy mix), the U will compromise slightly on the stat side. </p>
<p>I know that admissions policies are something that some on CC are heavily invested in attempting to control, but you will not succeed in controlling admissions policies or recreating them in your own image.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t find your current argument to be convincing in the slightest. Defenders of the status quo always assert that the benefits of affirmative action outweigh the costs. But, you’re saying that while affirmative action results in more diversity than no affirmative action, the difference is “tiny.” If that’s truly the case, then the benefits are far outweighed by the costs!</p>
<p>In my opinion, your argument would be so much stronger if you instead argued that “There is…a tremendous positive impact on the variety of the campus experience…” I would still disagree, of course, but at least you’d be providing a reason for why affirmative action is necessary. As I see it, the “[t]here is…a tiny positive impact…” route is a pretty strong argument for ending the policy!</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why in the world would admissions officers increase outreach to already advantaged “under-represented” minorities and internationals? Recruiting people who likely had ample educational opportunity growing up as well as the means to attend - what a waste of resources!</p></li>
<li><p>How wonderful! This alone makes it worthwhile to eliminate the current policy.</p></li>
<li><p>Meh.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As for your last paragraph, remind me what happened in California, Washington, Michigan, and Nebraska again? Oh, that’s right - people like me succeeded in “controlling admissions policies.”</p>