<p>If I am a severely ORM would it be to my advantage not to report my race?</p>
<p>haha what does severely ORM mean?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I presume the intended expansion of the abbreviation would make the phrase “severely overrepresented minority,” but what is TeaOverCoffee specifically referring to?</p>
<p>Referring to my posts [#436[/url</a>] and [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060946712-post438.html]#438[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060946712-post438.html]#438[/url</a>], Weasel8488 wrote, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s actually the industry-standard term in a lot of social science writing by both American and British authors referring not only to college admission but to other instances of selecting people for desired opportunities. I know that madville, who has posted several replies to this thread, is aware of the writings of the controversial author Thomas Sowell. While not saying that I would endorse all of Sowell’s views, or any particular view of Sowell’s, I will mention here that his book Preferential Policies (1991) </p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Preferential-Policies-International-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688109691/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Preferential-Policies-International-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688109691/]Amazon.com:</a> Preferential Policies: An International Perspective: Thomas Sowell: Books](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060946287-post436.html]#436[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060946287-post436.html) </p>
<p>simply follows the usage of many earlier authors in how he uses the word “preferences” to describe what I also describe as “preferences.” </p>
<p>Oh, and I might draw the line between qualifications and preferences differently from Weasel8488, and not emphasize so much the dimension of individual characteristic versus group characteristic when drawing the line.</p>
<p>As in if I were Chinese or Indian would it be better for me to apply as “race unreported?” At least for affirmative action schools?</p>
<p>There probably isn’t a uniform answer for what would be most personally expedient to do when applying to various colleges as a person who would fit the “Asian” category in the federal reporting. Colleges don’t publish their admission figures in a way that makes it possible to be sure how much that matters.</p>
<p>Why is there affirmative action? </p>
<p>Some say its because of economic reasons, but to be honest, there are poor people of every race out there. Plus, I would imagine that the under represented minorities (URMs) that attend elite colleges grew up in a normal, low/medium/high middle class household. </p>
<p>If it’s because of the fact that they are discriminated towards, why should there not be affirmative action for Indians? or Asians? If anything, these two groups are less favored than Caucasians, simply because they tend to achieve more (cultural values). Also, discrimination is not something that should be compensated for, since people get discriminated against for soo many other things (ie. voice, height) People who are ugly are discriminated against as well…should ugly people have some form of affirmative action?</p>
<p>Also, if affirmative action continues this way, it will just cement that stereotype of URMS (blacks, hispanics) being the lowest achieving racial groups. I realize that there are many URMs who truly deserve to go to the universities they got into, and would probably have gotten in regardless of AA. However, I have also heard stories of kids with URM status, nothing special in the ECs, SAT in the 1900s or 2000s getting in to many ivy league schools. MIT’s affirmative action policy states that they “admit all qualified under represented minorities”. That brings up the question, “what does ‘qualified’ mean?” Well, at an MIT information session I attended, an admissions officer stated that roughly 85% of the MIT applicant pool is qualified to attend MIT. (I’m guessing this means okay grades, like 3.6 and above, okay SATs, and an interest in math and sciences). So, if you’re a URM, and you fall in that 85% of the applicant pool, then you’re in. </p>
<p>[Attack</a> on Affirmative Action in Admissions Sparks Debate - The Tech](<a href=“http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N66/caff.66n.html]Attack”>http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N66/caff.66n.html)</p>
<p>Let me just make it clear that I am not a racist, but I do think this policy is extremely unfair.</p>
<p>The original point of AA was to correct the wrongs that the American government did in the past in order to create a fairer society. It’s basically a way that the American government says, “Hey, we screwed up, but we’re not going to waste our money on reparations. Instead, we’ll try to move past things and make things better for you.” For example, at a time before the civil rights movement, there weren’t a whole lot of blacks admitted to non-historically black schools. As a whole, there were less blacks in college. Less blacks in college meant that they made less money. And less money for blacks because of something the US government did isn’t very fair. Even if some groups (e.g. nail-biters, ugly people) are discriminated against in society, they weren’t formally discriminated against by the US government resulting in poverty hence why they don’t get AA benefits. </p>
<p>The last time I checked, AA still exists for Asians in certain areas. Notre Dame, for example, has considerably smaller percentage of Asians than at peer institutions. Asians are also underrepresented in law occupations (judges, lawyers, etc.) As for college situations, AA was applicable to Asians- they, like blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans- had been discriminated against in the past. Nowadays, Indians have the highest percentage of Bachelor’s degrees of any ethnic group in the States. Other Asians (e.g. Chinese) are overrepresented at top colleges- both of which are pushes and pulls on the AA system (AA was meant to be put in place temporarily until everything was “equal” again.) Some schools have stopped preferential treatment towards Asians for this reason. You might be interested in looking at the Jian Li case about this matter. </p>
<p>:P Just some background. </p>
<p>My two cents: legacy admissions are by far more detrimental to college admissions than AA because they benefit the wealthy rather than the poor, which is more unfair than AA. If AA is to go, legacy admissions should also.</p>
<p>Well if everyone else uses the term “preferences”, then who am I to argue with them? But just from a grammatical standpoint, it seems odd. “Qualifications” refers to a characteristic of an applicant while “preferences” refers to a characteristic of the colleges–applicants have qualifications while colleges have preferences. </p>
<p>tokenadult, how would you draw the line? The main reason I find preferences distasteful in college admissions is that applicants have no control over whether they receive them. How about drawing the line by saying that a qualification is something that the applicant has a good degree of control over? This is an interesting exercise–thanks for proposing it.</p>
<p>The article that you linked to is more than a decade old. The past is not now.</p>
<p>IMO, the (related) reasons to have race or gender-based AA are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Performance of URMs (and in some subjects, women) on tests is artificially lowered by the stereotype threat phenomenon (which is not true for ORMs).</p></li>
<li><p>People - including liberals who pride themselves on egalitarian views - still have unconscious biases against women and URMs, and there needs to be a balance to that.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Regarding “qualifications:” While I am aware of published GPA/score ranges for colleges that reflect after-the-fact admissions, other than for public systems like CA and TX, I have never seen any colleges publish minimum admissions qualifications. In fact, if I recall correctly, Harvard has publicly stated that it has no minimum qualification standards.</p>
<p>With respect to colleges that also use “preferences” as tokenadult has defined them, it is my understanding that those factors are used to determine an applicant’s qualifications. In other words, GPA/scores do not give the entire picture of an applicant’s ability to succeed in/graduate from college, so the “preference” factors are used to put GPA/scores in context. </p>
<p>In my mind, all of the factors (controllable and uncontrollable) together determine an applicants qualifications/merit.</p>
<p>Bay, this is not my understanding, as it has been explained to me. I would be troubled if someone’s origin “qualified” them to attend a particular U more than someone else’s origin, even in a single case, let alone for an entire group. And while I object to the word “preferences” because it is extremely misleading – implying a static & an institutionalized choice, vs. the dynamic that in fact it is – I, like tokenadult, have read it elsewhere, while not ever from any admissions officer or rep, because it simply doesn’t work in that fashion.</p>
<p>Qualifications are determined both quantitatively & qualitatively, combined (i.e., ‘holistically,’ as I mentioned earlier). Those who meet both broad criteria abundantly are clear admits (whatever their origins, & even if all those clear admits for one admission round have identical/similar origins). That number, however, is not that large. Those are the ‘stars’ that “have it all,” & invariably they are cross-admits to several Elites. </p>
<p>After these ultra-qualified, there are a huge number (according to the Elites, about 3 times the number of available seats in the freshman class) of qualified students to attend that U – ranging from qualified to highly qualified on holistic measures (again, setting aside origins). It is among that group that “preferences” or “building a class” is introduced. One of the highest “preferences” in that effort is race, because, as you & I know, it is a Given that some effort at inclusion will be attempted if the raw material (college preparation) is sufficient for a demanding U. As with the ‘ultra-qualified’ segment, that segment is small, because in this country there is still a relatively tiny representation of URM’s who are <em>both</em> qualified to attend & seek to attend an Elite.</p>
<p>After the qualified URM segment is accounted for, the other “preferences” are very fluid & change year to year. They are relative to current enrollment goals, current campus needs, current demographic changes in the country, etc.</p>
<p>Bay, I disagree with your apparent claim that preferences can help to determine an applicant’s ability to succeed in college. For example, being a legacy does not make someone more likely to succeed.</p>
<p>Thanks, everyone, you are joining issue with what I find interesting about this matter of “qualified” applicants. Is what a college desires in making up its overall class simply the operational definition of being “qualified” for that college, or is there some sharp distinction between qualification factors (“merit”) on the one hand and preference factors on the other hand? It looks like we are adding some detail and nuance to our discussion of that issue now, which I think will help in further discussion of college admission policies in this thread.</p>
<p>Yes, there’s a sharp distinction. If you can’t do the work, you’re not qualified. Doesn’t matter what your race is in that case, your ethnicity, your residency, or your intended major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I have no evidence to back up this statement, I have read convincing arguments on these forums that legacies are thought more likely to be prepared for a legacy-college’s rigor by virtue of the fact that they were raised by alums of that college. For example, the home-life education of the child of two Ivy graduates is presumably quite different than that of single-parent high school drop out. (Not intending to judge or offend here, just talking about “likelihood.” Obviously, this scenario could be completely inaccurate on a case-by-case basis.)</p>
<p>In context race can provide information that can be valuable for determining an applicant’s qualifications. For example, if a Black applicant was the only Black student in his/her southern high school and managed to be elected student body president, might his race rightly be taken into account? What about a Asian student who championed the rights of Latino immigrants as his/her major EC? I would think race might relevant in these instances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Bay has already pointed out, that’s actually an empirical question. College admission committees set policies on such issues based on command from above, tradition, or possibly scientific study of previous admitted classes. I don’t know of any admission study results that speak to this issue, but it is conceivable to me (as the child of a college-educated parent who didn’t attend his “legacy” college) that maybe dinner-table conversation with a parent about the parent’s college experiences might provide enough information about college life to help an otherwise equally qualified applicant thrive better as a legacy student than as a first-generation student. Whether or not this is so may vary from college to college, but I wouldn’t dismiss without further investigation the possibility that legacy is actually a “qualification,” if “qualification” is taken to mean an admission factor that reliably predicts success in studying as an undergraduate.</p>
<p>I think that college admissions are not only about what is fair for the student. While the issues of historical discrimination and bias (current and past) are very important, a university also has an interest in being a place where people’s minds are broadened, their assumptions challenged, and they are forced to look at things a new way. Having a broadly diverse student body is part of how that is achieved. </p>
<p>Also, African American teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc are statistically more likely to go back into underserved communities to practice their professions (lots of exceptions of course) and universities also often have the communities’ benefit as part of their mission statement.</p>
<p>Applicants just have to accept that fairness to them, while important, is not the only consideration.</p>
<p>Your article is from 1998…</p>
<p>Let’s not revisit this argument please.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE TO “The point of affirmative action?” THREAD: </p>
<p>Because there is an active existing thread on this topic, I will merge the “The point of affirmative action?” thread into the FAQ thread on race in college admission. Read the first several posts of the FAQ thread to get up-to-date information about current regulations and current statistics.</p>