"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion

Applying to College
81

<p>Post 73:
"why not give racial preferences to all minorities?"</p>

<p>They [colleges] do. Entirely the point that Bay and I have been making. It's unacceptable to most 'high-profile' colleges to have an overwhelming presence of any one race, ethnicity, nationality, or region (globally or domestically). And without a conscious effort at inclusion (within the framework of excellence), it will not just "happen." It will especially not just happen if there's an artificial hierarchy of numerical scores as the index of 'merit.' For all of you supposedly claiming that what you REALLY want is to see low-income students admitted of all races, as a priority: the single greatest correlate of high scores = high income. Read the research.</p>

<p>What "race-blind" admissions guarantees currently is an overwhelming presence of upper-middle class whites & Asians, + a near-disappearance of low-income southeast Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and whites.</p>

<p>Combine that with a rigid numerically-based 'merit' measurement, and here's what you get: probably 50% combined Chinese, Korean, Indian, Japanese upper-middle class; 45% Caucasian Anglo upper-middle class; 5% all other. </p>

<p>At least that accords with the score breakdowns that have been posted on CC from sources in the recent past. </p>

<p>That's not the breadth of U.S. student representation, in terms of origins & circumstances. It is also not what the majority of all students applying to Elites want to experience in the student body. In addition to meeting mission statements, colleges choose to consider the overall appeal of their campus to the maximum # of applicants: it figures into Yield, not to mention the desire to apply in the first place. Colleges are businesses, not just academies.</p>

82

<p>Great point in your last paragraph epiphany!</p>

83

<p>
[quote]
First, opposing racial preferences and believing everything is hunky dory are separate. Give me one reason why a person who opposes discrimination MUST believe that racism is extinct.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's mighty convenient how you simplified your own argument to jive with what you said. We aren't talking about approving or opposing discrimination, whatever that even means. Who doesn't oppose discrimination? We're talking about race as an admissions factor to colleges. And someone who opposes its use either a) doesn't care about closing the socioeconomic gap between black and white people in America or b) thinks that gap doesn't exist. Which it does.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I’m always amazed as to how often pro-racial preference people conflate socioeconomics into their arguments for racial preferences. Your second paragraph intended to argue for racial preferences but actually argued for socioeconomic affirmative action. You were talking about lack of money, lack of connections, and an overall disadvantage. All of that is socioeconomic in nature. You didn’t mention racial discrimination even once in that paragraph.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm always amazed as to how often anti Affirmative Action people miss the point. Socioeconomics and education are DIRECTLY related. People with college degrees are, gasp, more likely to get higher paying jobs and less likely to end up in prison. Otherwise, as so many CCers would say, why go to college? Yeah, liberal arts education, beauty of ideas, yadda yadda yadda, I'm all for that, but the fact is college gets you somewhere you couldn't necessarily go without it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Are you talking about equality of opportunity, or equality of result? If you’re talking about the former, then I’m with you all the way. I believe every child in our nation should have a shot at higher education if he so desires. However, if you’re talking about the latter, then count on me to oppose you every step of the way. I do not believe that anyone is entitled or guaranteed a place in higher education by virtue of his skin color.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, you yourself talked a paragraph earlier about "lack of connections" and "overall disadvantage". So to get their "shot at higher education", poor black kids need to overcome their massive inherent disadvantages not just to graduate high school, but to become what you consider "competitive" candidates for admission at selective schools? The kid who is scared of getting shot when he goes to the grocery store needs to have the same research experience as the trust fund, Exeter baby? Or do poor minority kids only have a right to less selective, less "prestigious" educations? Is Harvard only for the kids who are connected enough, rich enough to pay for trips abroad, for Breadloaf Writer's Conferences? Why are those kids smarter than some black kid from Atlanta who doesn't even know where Middlebury is, much less that it has a conference for writing? Or was he just too "lazy" and didn't "work hard enough" to make the cut at Harvard?</p>

<p>Secondly, you imply that I say these kids are entitled to their spots. I don't. If you read my post, I say specifically that these kids are smart, that they can be brilliant, but they don't have the stats or achievements that more advantaged kids do because they can't have the stats. They can't pay for SAT class. They can't pay for piano lessons. So are they just supposed to teach themselves?</p>

<p>Plain and simple, a lot of kids that are, in reality, just as smart as the white prep school kids but can't afford the same academic or admissions-oriented luxuries are, shocking I know, not going to fit the "criteria" as well. Since they can't pay for SAT class like Andover kids can, they will have lower scores. They will not have internships. So according to you, they're less qualified? And you're the one who wants fairness in admissions?</p>

84

<p>Tokenadult - I really enjoyed post #61.</p>

<p>I had an experience similar to your's with Henry. During the 1967-68 school year my family lived in Grand Forks, North Dakota, which at the time may have been the whitest place on earth. Literally everyone at my school was white. Every student, every teacher, every staff member. I imagine most of the students had never seen black person.</p>

<p>My 5th grade teacher arranged to have a couple of black people come in and talk to our class. Our first visitor was a black woman who spoke to us for about an hour about what it was like being black in the U.S. We were excited when she offered to let us touch her skin and hair.</p>

<p>The next day the teacher brought in our second visitor, a black man probably in his mid 20s. He began to speak about something having nothing at all to do with race, and my classmates and I started looking around at each other with a sense that something was wrong, that the teacher must not have told him that he was supposed to be talking about his blackness. We were uncomfortable that he didn't realize what was expected of him. Gradually our anxiety subsided as we became more drawn in to the subject of his talk. He talked for about thirty minutes, never mentioning his race. He was simply a man giving a talk.</p>

<p>Looking back, I realize that my 5th grade teacher was a very wise woman.</p>

85

<p>epiphany,</p>

<p>Another fundamental point of difference. Let’s assume an admissions policy that is almost identical to what we have today except that it is race-netural. Let’s further assume that it results in college enrollments that are overwhelmingly black. Here’s where you and I differ. You think that this result is a problem. I don’t. I see no problem whatsoever.</p>

<p>
[quote]

What "race-blind" admissions guarantees currently is an overwhelming presence of upper-middle class whites & Asians, + a near-disappearance of low-income southeast Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and whites.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I ask you, what is so wrong about this? As your paragraphs so clearly demonstrate, you can only accept a scenario where there are more “underrepresented” minorities but not an “overwhelming presence.” I can accept all scenarios: more, same, less. This is why your ideology will lose in the end. Yours is one that is too rigid.</p>

86

<p>areyouserioussss,</p>

<p>I have not “simplified [my] own argument to jive with what * said.” Opposing racial preferences isn’t the same thing as naively believing that our world is the best of all worlds. There’s no rule anywhere that says they are inextricably intertwined. I oppose racial preferences, support socioeconomic preferences, and believe that not everybody is part of the same socioeconomic class. Therefore, your last sentence of your first paragraph is wrong. One counterexample is all it takes to disprove a statement.</p>

<p>No, I have not missed your point. You missed your own point. You argued for racial preferences by giving an example of a poor black student from Compton. Your entire paragraph emphasized his socioeconomic condition. You didn’t once talk about racial discrimination! It does not make sense to argue for racial preferences by giving a socioeconomic example. That’s no different than trying to convince a person to vote for John McCain by extolling the virtues of Barack Obama!</p>

<p>What’s more, you’re continuing to miss the point! Your third paragraph again is an argument for socioeconomic affirmative action. You’re talking about dangerous neighborhoods, trust funds, and private conferences. THOSE ARE SOCIOECONOMIC! Look, if you’re going to argue for racial preferences, then base your arguments on race, not socioeconomics. Talk about racial discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry. Don’t talk about poverty and wealth.</p>

<p>You really need to do more research on the difference between race-based affirmative action and socioeconomic affirmative action. Almost everything you’ve written in support of racial preferences is actually in support of socioeconomic affirmative action. They aren’t the same thing. There’s a reason why socioeconomic affirmative action is often touted as an alternative to racial preferences. Think about it.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Combine that with a rigid numerically-based 'merit' measurement, and here's what you get: probably 50% combined Chinese, Korean, Indian, Japanese upper-middle class; 45% Caucasian Anglo upper-middle class; 5% all other.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was just thinking that this seems to describe Stuyvesant High School pretty well. Could anyone who went to Stuy or maybe some other selective magnet school which has race blind admissions (TJ for example) comment on what this environment is like? Do you feel that the increased academic qualifications of the student body are worth the price of the skewed demographics (if you feel there is a price at all)?</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
There’s a reason why socioeconomic affirmative action is often touted as an alternative to racial preferences. Think about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those reasons I would imagine, have as much as to do with whites not being constantly harrassed, reminded, and having to deal with the legacy of past discrimination as well as the current discrepancies. It isn't much more than a lesson in semantics to appease those whites who are woefully ignorant of the horrific policies set forth for them to benefit from at the expense of others. Now, some form of restitution has to be levied and for some whites, the perception is that it is at their hard justified expense. Socio economic affirmative action is a term to pacify the masses.</p>

89

<p>Dude. Come on. The kid from Compton IS black, as I said. A lot of socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants are, because a lot of black people are. The two things are related. Even though it isn't fair, a disproportionately large amount of the poor, uneducated people in our country are black. Their economic disadvantages make them less "desirable" candidates. No SAT classes, etc. So yeah, according to your logic, they shouldn't get in. But unless we want to keep that disproportion of poor people, they should get in.</p>

<p>Do you think if the same number of black people went to college as do white people, they would still go to prison more often? They'd still be in general poorer? Poverty is, whether you like it or not or want to pretend it isn't or not, a racial issue.</p>

<p>So yes. I say let kids in because they're black. If it means another brilliant but disadvantaged black kid out of jail, good. I'm glad. The middle class, Westchester white kid's place he takes will survive. The black kid might not.</p>

<p>Yeah, there are middle class black people, but not exactly tons. I go to one of those schools listed in that thread as sending tons of kids to Ivies, and I can think of one, one black kid who wasn't on substantial financial aid in my entire school. And I live in Connecticut. That upper-middle class black simply barely exists.</p>

<p>History has put black people in a place where they simply need "prestigious" higher education far, far more than white people do. And I personally think they should get it.</p>

90

<p>madville,</p>

<p>When I said there was a reason, I meant it more simply. Socioeconomic affirmative action and race-conscious affirmative action aren’t synonyms. Based on that simple fact, they aren’t the same.</p>

<p>As you well know, ever since Bakke, no Court has approved the doctrine of restitution / reparations as legitimate. It’s un-Constitutional. As Justice Powell wrote in that case,</p>

<p>* ...there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons in respondent's position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making.*</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>Hence, the purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of “societal discrimination” does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent, who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered. To hold otherwise would be to convert a remedy heretofore reserved for violations of legal rights into a privilege that all institutions throughout the Nation could grant at their pleasure to whatever groups are perceived as victims of societal discrimination. That is a step we have never approved.</p>

<p>Regarding “
the horrific policies set forth for [whites] to benefit from at the expense of others,” I don’t deny that these existed. I personally dislike Tim Wise for a variety of reasons, but his examples in this area do apply. Back in the day, whites could obtain low interest mortgages from the federal government but blacks could not. That was wrong.</p>

<p>However, did a guy like Allan Bakke create that discriminatory policy? No. Did he authorize slavery? No. Did he write Jim Crow? No. So, why should he be punished for things he didn’t do? There’s nothing affirmative about punishing a guy for sins that neither he nor his grandparents committed. That’s negative action.</p>

<p>Restitution is hard to implement without being grossly discriminatory. As the NYT</a> reported in 2004, “While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black
the majority of them -- perhaps as many as two-thirds -- were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.”</p>

<p>At least at Harvard, racial preferences seemed to have overwhelmingly benefited people like me: the children of immigrants. How can you ensure that they aren’t the ones benefiting from “restitution?” You have to ask questions like, “where was your grandfather born?” The irony.</p>

91

<p>areyouserioussss,</p>

<p>I’m going to try one more time to explain my criticism of your reasoning. You’re arguing for giving extra consideration to applicants of certain races (i.e. racial preferences). However, all of your points are based on socioeconomics (e.g. wealth, neighborhoods, etc.)</p>

<p>You reason as follows:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Poverty makes it harder to live in a safe neighborhood. (“The kid who is scared of getting shot when he goes to the grocery store
”)</p></li>
<li><p>Poverty makes it harder to participate in unique “educational” opportunities (“Do you think a kid from Compton, CA has the money to go on the same South American house-building trip that a kid from Andover goes on?”)</p></li>
<li><p>Poverty makes it harder to attend SAT classes, piano lessons, and so forth (“They can't pay for SAT class. They can't pay for piano lessons.”)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Conclusion: “
let kids in because they're black.”</p>

<p>Wha
? Hold on. You’re talking about black students who are poor, and you talk about how their poverty makes it harder for them relative to “trust fund, Exeter bab[ies].” However, you don’t conclude that they should be helped because they’re poor. Even though you don’t once mention current discrimination and prejudice, you conclude that they should be helped because they’re black.</p>

<p>Maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but that makes zero sense to me. If you’re arguing that poverty makes it difficult, then base your preference on poverty, not race. If you claim that poverty is the problem, then your solution should focus on poverty.</p>

<p>PS:</p>

<p>You do realize that black is not synonymous with poor, yes?</p>

92

<p>Race and income level are two separate categories for admissions consideration. Racial diversity is desired for the reason that tokenadult stated back in post #47. Low income is considered in order to give these perceived disadvantaged students a chance to escape poverty. If you do not subscribe to the idea that a racially diverse learning environment is beneficial and advantageous to the student body, (and fab has made it crystal clear over the years that he does not), then you will never understand the reasoning behind using race as a factor in admissions.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
If you do not subscribe to the idea that a racially diverse learning environment is beneficial and advantageous to the student body, (and fab has made it crystal clear over the years that he does not), then you will never understand the reasoning behind using race as a factor in admissions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I most certainly do not subscribe to this idea. I think diversity is great, but I think absent segregation, it occurs naturally and does not need to be forced.</p>

<p>In a scare tactic reminiscent of pre-2006 Republican anti-Democrat ads, epiphany claims that race-blind admissions will result in schools that have an “overwhelming presence of upper-middle class whites & Asians, + a near-disappearance of low-income southeast Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and whites.”</p>

<p>Also like the GOP, her scare tactic unsurprisingly has no basis in reality. According to Economic</a> Diversity, in 2005-2006, 31% of UCBerkeley’s and 37% of UCLA’s fall enrollment had Pell Grants. By comparison, the equivalent statistics for Stanford, Harvard, UPenn, and Yale are 12%, 8%, 9%, and 9%, respectively. As far as public universities that are as good as Berkeley and UCLA but practiced affirmative action, Michigan’s percentage was 13. It appears to me that even though both Berkeley and UCLA are race-blind, they still attract a lot of low-income talent. So much for her “near-disappearance.”</p>

94

<p>Do you have statistics from before the UC's stopped considering race?</p>

95

<p>You're not going to further the conversation if you just start ignoring some of my sentences selectively, so I guess I'll go in circles too and reiterate what I last said:</p>

<p>A disproportionate amount of black people are poor. Unless you think this is a good thing, a way to remedy it is to accept equally intelligent but slightly less qualified poor black students into selective colleges. Yes, it will be because they're black: there is a disproportionately small amount of poor white kids, and while it's equally impressive if they overcome their economic limitations, their race will not help them because they are not the members of an unfairly disadvantaged race as a whole.</p>

<p>This is not a huge logic jump. If you'd read my previous post, you would see that I specifically did NOT say that black=poor; there are middle and upper middle class blacks, there just aren't many. The amount of black people living in poverty is ridiculous and unfair, and we use AA to level the playing field a little with the white folk. Education gets you out of poverty. Black people more than anyone else need to get out of poverty. Ergo, black people need education, ergo we give it to them, sometimes preferentially.</p>

96

<p>Weasel8488,</p>

<p>Sorry. Economic Diversity has figures only for 2000-2001 and 2005-2006.</p>

<p>However, according</a> to the NYT, “
various class-based efforts have helped the share of Pell Grant students at both U.C.L.A. and Berkeley to hold steady over the last decade, even as it has declined at many similar colleges.”</p>

<p>The point remains that epiphany is wrong. Ending racial preferences will not result in a “near-disappearance” of low-income students at top universities. You only need one counterexample to disprove a statement, but I have two: Berkeley and UCLA. Neither uses racial preferences yet both are schools where over 30% of the students receive Pell Grants.</p>

<p>A statement like “affirmative action is a good thing” is an opinion. That’s a normative statement. It’s an opinion, and I can’t disprove your opinions. However, statements like race-blind admissions result in an “overwhelming presence of upper-middle class whites & Asians, + a near-disappearance of low-income southeast Asians, blacks, Hispanics, and whites” are not opinions. They are positive statements and therefore can be tested. The facts show the statement to be utterly false.</p>

97

<p>areyouserioussss,</p>

<p>No, I’m still not following your reasoning. You say that poor black students are disadvantaged because they’re poor, but you grant preference based on their race. That’s a huge non sequitur. If poverty is the problem, then addressing poverty is the solution. You have consistently said that poverty is the problem, but at the same time, you have consistently said that race is the solution. That doesn’t make any sense at all.</p>

<p>This isn’t a matter of opinion. I can’t convince you that racial preferences are a bad thing. This is a matter of reasoning, and yours is flawed. You seem to have great difficulty seeing the problems of arguing for racial preferences from socioeconomic examples. So, let’s see if you can spot the flaw with the following:</p>

<p>Fact: Racism against blacks still exists, therefore blacks face discrimination today. </p>

<p>Conclusion: To help blacks, we need to address poverty among blacks.</p>

<p>Woah, woah, woah. Wait a minute. Does that conclusion make sense in light of the given fact? No, it does not. If racism is the problem, then addressing racism is the solution. If you can see the problem with this reasoning, then you can see the problem with yours.</p>

<p>Furthermore, your policy is far, far less inclusive than mine is. I think it’s a great idea to give socioeconomic preferences without regard to race. You only want to help poor black students. Who’s more socially just here? (Hint: not you.)</p>

98

<p>fabrizio, if memory serves me right you've cited studies saying that minority enrollment would drop dramatically if colleges ended racial preferences. Do you know of any studies which predict what would happen if colleges got rid of racial preferences and instituted socioeconomic preferences?</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
fabrizio, if memory serves me right you've cited studies saying that minority enrollment would drop dramatically if colleges ended racial preferences. Do you know of any studies which predict what would happen if colleges got rid of racial preferences and instituted socioeconomic preferences?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, you remembered correctly.</p>

<p>To be specific, the study was The Shape of the River, authored by Drs. Bowen and Bok, both of whom were Presidents of Ivy League schools. The book is considered to be the definitive defense of “race-conscious” admissions. The authors acknowledged that absent “race-conscious” admissions, enrollment of “underrepresented” minorities would plummet. I see this as proof against the common statement, “Race doesn’t play that big of a role in affirmative action.” If it really did not, then why do the percentages so wildly change when it is taken away?</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I don’t know of any studies which predict what would happen if colleges got rid of racial preferences and instituted socioeconomic preferences. Sorry. (Such a study would greatly interest me, though.)</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, I don’t know of any studies which predict what would happen if colleges got rid of racial preferences and instituted socioeconomic preferences. Sorry. (Such a study would greatly interest me, though.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think among the elite schools, you would see something similar to the results of maybe something like Questbridge. Although to what extent race factors or doesn't, I'm not sure, but the basic premise of matching students is on socio-economic factors & merit. AA are well represented, but not to the extent where in admissions race may be factored more significantly. In the latter scenario, while some ORM's and whites may be displaced, I don't see the displacement as being as significant or detrimental to those groups as would be the minority groups affected by the admissions standards as set forth in Michigan, California, etc. </p>

<p>One thing that is either lost or regarded less among anti-affirmative opponents is that the disparities in many of the quality of life, and standard of living considerations between whites, AA, and Latinos are significant, and they start at birth and increase until death for many in the latter groups. Some I readily agree are self inflicted, but many are a result of the way things have been and still are. There can be no denying this. Race(ism) manifests itself subtlety and not so subtlety at times to create these disparities and no matter how much we debate this, there will be no "fair" and justifiable means to resolve these disparities to the satisfaction to all those affected. In the mean time, I whole heartedly agree with the premise of those who support affirmative action, that it is for lack of a better term, a "necessary evil", to provide those individuals and groups opportunities, that would not be as available to them as equitably had they been left to conventional means. Contemporary racism manifiests itself as what I describe, " the tangible intangible."</p>

<p>As Mr. Wise has so succintly noted; "In short, and let us be clear on it: race is not a card. It determines who the dealer is, and who gets dealt."</p>

<p>We would be remiss if we didn't remind ourselves reflecting on that metaphor, that for people of color, the "house always wins." I can live with that, as long as we have a real stake at playing the game to win. AA is a "rule" in the game that gives us some odds to "win a few hands". Not a defeatist mentality, but a realist mentality, IMHO.</p>