"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion

<p>Madville, if one ethnic group is disproportionately poor as you seem to be saying, then they would also benefit disporportionately by socioeconomic affirmative action. You still haven't demonstrated why you advocate racial preferences rather than socioeconomic affirmative action. We could achieve the same thing without the controversy.</p>

<p>If itā€™s really about ā€œstandard of living considerations,ā€ then like collegealum314, I see that as a socioeconomic problem that should be addressed with socioeconomic preferences.</p>

<p>On a sidenote, Wiseā€™s ā€œrace cardā€ essay is one of the worst pieces of writing Iā€™ve ever attempted to read multiple times. Iā€™ve tried to read it three times, and Iā€™ve failed every single time. I realized after my third attempt that the reason why itā€™s so terrible is because itā€™s incredibly disorganized. He starts out with an observation: even whites who acknowledge that racism exists still think that racism is sometimes improperly brought up as a charge. Oddly, he never goes back to that observation. (In fact, if you e-mail Wise, heā€™ll tell you that he never said that blacks always tell the truth with regard to racism charges. Translation: a race card does exist.) Instead, Wise rants about the ineffectiveness of the race card and proceeds to list a mountain of statistics that show how blacks are not treated the same as whites even though in many cases they are comparable in terms of qualifications and personal history.</p>

<p>As we debate and discuss social policy ('race'-based vs. social-economic affirmative action), it may be helpful to reflect on history and the theories of Geo/Helio-centrism.</p>

<p>For centuries, man looked at the sky and concluded that the Earth was at the center of the Universe (the Geocentric</a> Model). Notwithstanding this incorrect explanation for what people observed with their own eyes, the Sun, stars and planets were utilized as navigational tools. Basic flaws in the model resulted in complicated "solutions" (epicycles</a>) to explain planetary motion.</p>

<p>Through the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, the Geocentric Model gave way to the Heliocentric</a> Model; a model which itself would be improved upon in the centuries to come. The Heliocentric Model (specifically Kepler's</a> Laws of Planetary Motion) allowed for more accurate calculations of planetary motion.</p>

<p>Science (anthropology</a>, biology, psychology...) is also informing our understanding of our species and the concept of 'race'. History and the social sciences also inform us of the perils of highly [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification%5Dstratified"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification]stratified&lt;/a> societies<a href="e.g.:%20the%20%5Burl=http://www.cyberessays.com/History/107.htm%5DFrench%20Revolution%5B/url%5D"&gt;/url&lt;/a>. </p>

<p>If the goal is the oft-touted 'social justice', we should not turn a blind eye to science in pursuit of this goal. Just as our species learned that there is a deeper reality beyond what our eyes tells us about the movement of the Sun and planets, we must learn the deeper reality of our commonality beyond the [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype%5Dphenotypes%5B/url"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype]phenotypes[/url&lt;/a&gt;] we perceive. Like Geocentrism, the principle of 'Race'-based affirmative action is built on a disprovable model: 'race'. And like epicycles, 'race-based' "solutions" have built-in inaccuracies and complications. </p>

<p>Social-economic affirmative action can be justified on its own merits and influenced by the founding philosophy of life, liberty and the **pursuit<a href="not%20guarantee">/b</a> of happiness.</p>

<p>I attached an excerpt from a book review from a book by Bowen and Bok, the former presidents of Princeton and Harvard. </p>

<p>"Race Sensitive Policies in Admissions a Thirty Year Study. "</p>

<p>"Arguments over the import of race sensitive polices in college admissions have long been based on anecdotal accounts, specifically because little statistical evidence on the effects of race sensitive policies existed. The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok details the first attempt to objectively assess the consequences of race sensitive policies using statistical evidence. In the book, William G. Bowen, former president of Princeton University, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, examine the College and Beyond database, a catalog of information on more than 80,000 undergraduates who enrolled at 28 selective colleges and universities in 1951, 1976 and 1989. "</p>

<p>stats in their book shows the percentage of African American's in schools with SAT's higher than 1300 would go from Approximately 8% down to approximately 2%, IF THERE WAS NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. </p>

<p>Schools with SAT's from 1150 to 1299 would go from approx. 6% to 3% with race blind admissions. </p>

<p>Schools with SAT's lower than 1150 would go from approx 7% to 4.5%. with race blind admissions. </p>

<p>All of the above assumes, there is no improvement in performance by African American's if AA ended. </p>

<p>I do not think that is correct. I believe that one reason African American's under perform is a culture of "hating academic success". </p>

<p>If you want to do more do a search on this board for Ogbu. He is an African American scholar from Nigeria who has a long record of studying the lack of success by African American's vs other minorities including recent immigrants from Africa and Caribbean's of African heritage who have immigrated to America. </p>

<p>Ogbu found native African Americans under performed academically because they did want to "act white". Black immigrants from other parts of the world, without that pathology performed at levels similar to immigrants from other parts of the world - at a high level.</p>

<p>Middle and upper middle class African Americans can "be cool" and not study, but still get into good schools. AA makes that possible.</p>

<p>If that crutch was taken away, African American'a would just study harder like everyone else, if they wanted to go to a good school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Madville, if one ethnic group is disproportionately poor as you seem to be saying, then they would also benefit disproportionately by socioeconomic affirmative action. You still haven't demonstrated why you advocate racial preferences rather than socioeconomic affirmative action.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even though the assertion that you misunderstand as my primary concern is valid as I understand it, proportional socio-economic disparities aren't the main reason I support race based initiatives. Even when researchers control various variables, in many situations comparing people of color to whites, most notably AA and Hispanics, there are still many discrepancies that are related to race. Some examples would be in hiring practices, educational opportunities, i.e., tracking, school discipline, promotional opportunities, business opportunities, the administration of justice in the court system, health care treatment, housing opportunities, and so on. Exit polls illustrate that race is a factor to a significant segment of those voting. Since whites control the majority of the various forms of capital in this society, i.e. human, social, economic, political, etc, these negative attitudes potentially manifest themselves in a far more detrimental fashion than when people of color harbor the same attitudes. Whites make up the largest number of those in every socio-economic bracket and thus would benefit more than other individuals if consideration was given to primarily socio-economic factors. Of course that would be more palatable to the majority. </p>

<p>Regardless of what contemporary jurists pontificate on with regards to reparations, and what is fair now, the legacy of various forms of white supremacy have largely created the human crap sandwich we all have to take a bite out of now. Someone said, "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons." That was written long before the "chickens coming home to roost" quote. Just because one hasn't owned slaves, participated in the direct legacy of Jim Crow, or discriminatory practices, someone did and profited at the expense of others. It is a metaphysical law that we all have to bear the consequences of. Real leadership would acknowledge this principle and seek out a remedy that would be as wisely applied as possible. Not an easy job, but one that has to be done.</p>

<p>As MLK stated; "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." </p>

<p>Now I know Fabrizio and others may disagree with Martin on this one since it goes against their interests, but lets at least acknowledge that this man possessed a wealth of wisdom and insight. We would be wise to continue to strive to apply this principle.</p>

<p>Even our founding father, that slave owning Thomas Jefferson exclaimed; ā€œIndeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."</p>

<p>We would be wise to remember that in dealing with our fellow man.</p>

<p>Peace,
Madville</p>

<p>Browsing through this thread, I can't believe some of what people are saying. I think people want to end AA in schools before it's even begun to do it's intended job: Putting minority students on a more level playing field in hopes that they'll be successful and their kids won't need as big of a helping hand. I'd be willing to bet a few minority students from pretty good backgrounds and schools also benefit, and while I don't think it's fair, I also don't believe that's a good reason to axe the entire thing.</p>

<p>I see all these postings around this site from people who have such a great chance to be successful from the beginning. Parents paying for their college and summer activities, coming from High Schools with an abundance of AP Courses and guidance counselors, Test Prep, plenty of opportunity for Extracurricular Activities. Yet, their biggest fear is some minority student that is "less deserving" than they are is going to get an edge and knock them out of a spot at an elite school. Not one of the applicants in the majority pool, just the minority students.</p>

<p>If you think predominately Black or Hispanic High Schools get the same treatment as White ones, I'd have to disagree. Especially City Schools. At least where I'm from. And no, not all of us are "Lazy" or somehow afraid we're going to look White if we're smart. That's stupid and please don't push that stereotype on me and many other minority students. When I first started HS, I started at a Big All-Black city school with high hopes of doing well and even a little excitement. That was killed pretty quickly. The classes were pathetic, and little was expected of students. I asked for Honors classes, no one cared. I asked for Art Class, no one cared. I asked could I go to Library after I was done with the little busywork I was given, No. I ask the teacher a question, she says "Do I look like the book to you?" Truth is, without some kind of support it's difficult to do much. So I transferred to a better school within the system, it was the best option I had. The classes were better, I even took one of the two AP classes offered and all the classes were 'honors' classes. It was better, but it certainly wasn't great and it still didn't allow for very much. </p>

<p>I wish AA wasn't at all necessary, and everyone had the same opportunities as everyone else. I wish Race didn't matter in life at all, much less college admissions. However, that's simply not the way things are right now. I wonder, when I browse this board and see subjects like these, how many people cared about race when it didn't put salt in their lemonade? Are they as opinionated and outspoken about race's involvement in the workforce, where you may very well not be hired because you're a minority (or the office already has it's statistic, thank you for coming and good day)? Housing, when a minority family doesn't fit in with the neighborhood? The judicial system, where race plays major role guilty or not-guilty? Or do these "Race doesn't matter, it's not fair!" feelings only come when it's the majority who doesn't benefit? I'm guessing that they do. The way I see it, most of those with great stats and opportunities, are getting into elite colleges just fine and going to great colleges everywhere. That's a heck of a lot more than most people, so I just don't understand the complaining.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Regardless of what contemporary jurists pontificate on with regards to reparations, and what is fair now, the legacy of various forms of white supremacy have largely created the human crap sandwich we all have to take a bite out of now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>DoveyP makes almost all the same points as well.</p>

<p>OK so if it's the legacy of white people beating down blacks, I can understand how that legacy manifests itself for the black lower class. I acknowledge that a legacy of discrimination and racism helped (somewhat) create the despondent conditions of the black ghetto. This then puts a highly talented black student at a disadvantage when going through the admissions process, from the failure of the inner city schools to educate him to lower SAT scores from a lack of sufficient prep material. OK, I get that and I don't deny it's a bad argument. I don't fully agree because I am not a cultural determinist, but fine. </p>

<p>OK, so then how does "white racism begetting black poverty" explain the following disparity in racial SAT scoring?</p>

<p>Image:1995-SAT-Income2.png</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>The issues raised in the previous posts which I've summarized above apply exclusively to** poor** blacks. Yet, the highest income blacks score worse than the poorest whites and comparable to the poorest Asians, who then subsequently outscore them in every other income level. Surely these poor Asians and whites are attending at best comparable schools, if not worse schools. </p>

<p>Is it because the SAT is intrinsically biased against minorities (specifically blacks and Hispanics)? Umm is it because of some other reason?</p>

<p>Of course DoveyP, you can't use the answer that high income blacks are afraid to look "white":</p>

<p>
[quote]
or somehow afraid we're going to look White if we're smart. That's stupid

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't know if I mentioned, but the two High Schools I attended were a bit different when it came to income. The first was much more low-income than the second, which was a magnet school which required a test in order to get in and attend. Some of these students had no problem with money. In fact, some of them were quite well-off. I would say the student body was mostly lower-middle to midde-class income wise. This wasn't a majorly poor school. We even had some students paying 1k a year to attend this "Black Academic High School." I know one student whose parents were both professors and pressured him academically since he was young. They also made a point to keep him at a Black School because A) They didn't want him to go through an uncomfortable situation of being one of the few Black Students at their zoned school (and this applied to quite a few of the more wealthy students) and B)They felt he had a much better chance of being Valedictorian and the #1 student at such schools. Despite how much money they have, the more wealthy students received the same education (with a little favoritism at times) as the rest of us. Therefore their scores suffered for the same reason as other students. The average score was a 21 on the ACT, compared to the other schools in the system which had about a 16 average. As far as my school system went, we were the lucky ones, the privileged ones. And the schools wasn't even that great. If I'd stayed at my first HS, I'd be in terrible shape educationally. If I was at the good school in my system and attending an elite college was pretty much out reach, I can only imagine being at the others and trying to achieve something like that.</p>

<p>And what, high-income Blacks already look "White"? They don't look "White" in my view anymore than poor White students look "Black". XD I just read the idea that a lot of black students don't try because they're afraid they'll appear less black to peers and therefore become a bit of a social outcast. From what I've seen, that has more to do with interests than money and grades. </p>

<p>I also want to make it clear that I don't point the finger at white supremacy, at racism, or at simply income levels. There is no single group to blame, and I won't do that. Many things lead to the inequalities in education, and there is no band-aid fix. I just don't think AA makes it easy on minority students the way people sometimes seem to believe, as it's still very difficult to get the stats and preparation necessary to even have a chance at an ivy league school, AA or not. I'm not trying to argue people down or change set opinions, either. I just like to express my thoughts sometimes. :D I'm also an insomniac.</p>

<p><em>-</em> Love makes the world go 'round <em>_</em></p>

<p>DoveyP,</p>

<p>Part of the problem is that the intention that you refer to hasnā€™t been realized and likely wonā€™t ever be realized. As I posted in #90, according to the NYT, ā€œWhile about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were blackā€¦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.ā€</p>

<p>The pro-racial preference crowd readily admits that these kinds of immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, and Asia are a highly self-selected group. They bring with them immense human capital and talent. In other words, while all initially struggle, many end up living the American Dream. Focusing specifically on Caribbean and African immigrants, we see that they have largely been the beneficiaries of modern affirmative action. So, itā€™s not ā€œa fewā€¦from pretty good backgroundsā€¦also benefit.ā€ Itā€™s the opposite: manyā€¦from pretty good backgroundsā€¦also benefit.</p>

<p>(As an anecdote that has no scientific basis, I find that the strongest supporters of modern affirmative action are the children of Nigerian immigrants. Second-generation American Nigerians have benefited immensely from affirmative action. They come from families that value education, and they can legitimately claim to be ā€œAfrican-American.ā€ Put the two together, and you end up with an overrepresented ā€œunderrepresented minority.ā€)</p>

<p>I think posts 109 and 110 help to move this discussion to its crux. Yes, fabrizio, I agree with you that the intention DoveyP refers to "hasnā€™t been realized and [my word] 'may' never be realized." (I wouldn't go so far as to say 'likely never.') I think that the elite colleges know this at least as well as you and I do. I think they're only trying to do what they can.</p>

<p>I think that they are quite in agreement with Dovey's perception that "many things lead to the inequalities in education, and there is no band-aid fix."</p>

<p>I don't know if Dovey mentioned it, or is has been mentioned in the last few pages discussing the interplay of race and economics, but it certainly can be validated (is researchable) that higher-income blacks (not "high," but just not poor) perform better overall in college than very low-income blacks. There will be the rare exception of the inner-directed student determined to extricate himself/herself from a lifetime in the 'hood, but if the colleges waited for a critical mass of these to apply, they would never achieve very much range in color hues on campus.</p>

<p>What 'higher' income provides the student is the likelihood of some kind of support system (psychologically, practically) not only to do well in a very academically demanding college, but more importantly for purposes of admissions discussions, to prepare them adequately to be admitted to such demanding colleges in the first place.</p>

<p>There will not be enough truly low-income (disadvantaged) successful students of any/all races & ethnic/nat'l backgrounds to combine income + race as an admit segment in itself. ....At least those with the likelihood of succeeding at such institutions. There certainly aren't at the present moment.</p>

<p>In aggregate, there are not enough accomplished low-income students period who are both capable of and in search of an elite education, background (origins) aside. Hopefully you're aware of how much low-income has become a priority admission & recruitment target for the 'elites'.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I think would be helpful for the United States that my children and any children of yours will live in is to get out of the business of having a government endorsement that "race" categories are in some sense fixed categories for all time. They are fluid categories. It would be helpful for our society and for people from all ethnic backgrounds to think of those categories in that way for the following reasons: </p>

<p>a) The socioeconomic gap between people categorized as belonging to one ethnic group and people belonging to some other ethnic group can close AND HAS BEEN CLOSING with regard to some groups. I note that no one posting to this list has yet linked to income distribution plots for various ethnic groups in the United States showing distributions for each presumed ethnic group side by side. But we all know that the economic difference between the richest families in [whatever group you happen to name] and the poorest families in [whatever other group] are greater by far than the difference between the median levels of any of the groups defined on federal ethnic questionnaires. This has been true for a long time. Rather than assuming that there are any groups in the United States consisting of people who won't advance on their own, let's identify specific instances of invidious prejudice by civil rights law enforcement, and not otherwise categorize people with assumptions that "all [kind of people] are poor," which is never the case with regard to any ethnic group. </p>

<p>b) If an economic gap exists between rich people and poor people, which I don't see anyone denying in this thread, then let's address that economic gap directly. In this regard, one of the most helpful things sociologists and economists could do is examine what family characteristics result in children from a poor family moving up into higher income classes over time. The University of Michigan has conducted a long-term study of social mobility by income groups in the United States, and other scholars have explored this issue too. </p>

<p>Sometimes very poor people arrive to the United States as first-generation immigrants (as is still happening in the city where I live, from several different countries) and their children are found a generation later to have professional jobs and stable incomes. This leads to speculation that there is something distinct in being a newly arrived poor person, of whatever "race," from being the descendant of a family that arrived poor or even enslaved in the United States several generations ago. If there is such a distinction, what is it? Can other poor people take part in it? </p>

<p>Yes, "We're talking about race as an admissions factor to colleges," and what I have to say about that is that colleges will still have students from a variety of ethnicities, a variety of home backgrounds, and a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds if more and more students become aware that it is NOT mandatory to indicate any racial or ethnic category on a college questionnaire, as growing numbers of college applicants have already learned. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810810-post1.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810810-post1.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(Reporting is optional.) </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(Many colleges admit many students who don't answer ethnicity questions.) </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810849-post2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810849-post2.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>(The categories are vague and not equally fitting to all applicants anyway.) </p>

<p>The student who chooses to take a stand by saying, "I think I have more in common with all my fellow applicants than we have in distinction on the basis of ethnicity" is taking a stand for reducing socioeconomic disparities on the basis of race and is also rejecting the crude idea that all those [other guys] are the same. We all have a lot in common. We can all do plenty to help one another on the basis of common humanity.</p>

<p>tokenadult, I reject your implication that those who do choose to self-identify don't think they "have more in common with all my fellow applicants than we have in distinction on the basis of ethnicity". I strongly support bringing an end to racial inequality, and yet I have no problem answering the ethnic self-identification question--just as I don't mind providing my gender, Hispanic status (or lack thereof), and citizenship. There's nothing wrong with declining to answer the question, but I dislike how you continue to suggest there's something particularly admirable about it.</p>

<p>Hi, Weasel8488, </p>

<p>Of course I am reacting to earlier posts that implied that students deciding for themselves not to self-identify would thwart efforts to fight invidious racial prejudice. Instrumentally, I don't believe that is a correct statement. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating an increase in invidious racial prejudice.</p>

<p>Based on the historical examples I have mentioned earlier in the thread, I am more than a little worried that continual reminders of fixed, arbitrary ethnic categories on government-endorsed questionnaires may over time cause many Americans to suppose those categories have real existence. People in no other country suppose that the same categories either exist or are most relevant, and I can remember--because I am old enough to remember--when the categories talked about in the United States were quite different. The current categories both lump together students who probably deserve to be distinguished and distinguish students who not distinguishable by colleges in any other aspect relevant to college admission. </p>

<p>Once the form is in your hands, you get to decide how to mark it. You also get to decide how to fill out the free-form parts of a college application. Once you or any student arrives at college, you have a wonderful opportunity to discuss with other students whether those categories make sense, whether they are permanent or transitory, whether they are observed or neglected in other countries, and so on. (Actually, people can do that while they are still in high school, before they go to college.) </p>

<p>Since I last posted in this thread, I reviewed the history of some of the other countries I mentioned in this thread. Some of that history I remember as current events from my own adult life after college graduation. I'm sure many people in those countries were quite taken aback to see the ethnic categories built into law in those places turn into excuses for violence and destruction. Perhaps many of those people of various categories originally thought that the ethnic categories would help rather than undermine social cooperation and progress and peace in their countries. More research appears to be necessary on why such programs of categorization by ethnic groups have so often gone awry.</p>

<p>I wrote above, updating a post from an earlier thread, about why I care in general about ethnic relation issues in all countries. But I haven't related why I got interested in the specific rules of ethnic self-identification on college application forms. </p>

<p>Of course for a long time here on College Confidential, since before I began posting, there have been threads about college admission policies in regard to "race." What I noticed about those threads right away is that most of them rapidly degenerated into flame wars, and what I noticed all too soon is that many of the flames were based on false assertions of fact. Once I saw a thread, in which Northstarmom (who is always calm and cool and factual) was replying to a high school student who had a mistaken idea about college policies in admission. The student thought that Harvard REQUIRES students to self-identify a race as part of the admission process. I happened to know that that was untrue, because I had recently seen a copy of the Common Application, the only application form Harvard used that year, and I knew it said that the ethnic identification question is OPTIONAL. </p>

<p>Over time I discovered websites where Common Data Set information is reported for each college, including the ethnic categories reported by colleges to the federal government. I was surprised to see examples like Harvard </p>

<p>U-CAN:</a> Harvard University :: Page 1 </p>

<p>College</a> Search - Harvard College - At a Glance </p>

<p>with very high percentages of students reported as "race/ethnicity unknown." I then realized that a lot of smart students were not only aware that the ethnicity question is optional, but were taking seriously that it is optional and deciding, for whatever reason, to decline to answer the question. </p>

<p>So then when I saw people flaming "affirmative action" programs (which they usually take no care at all to define carefully before they start flaming), I would start to point out that the ethnic self-identification questions are optional. NO ONE is forced to self-identify if the applicant chooses not to self-identify. I also made statements in various threads along the lines of "Recognize that students from a variety of ethnic groups--including whatever one you would claim for yourself--are admitted to each of your favorite colleges each year. On the other hand, admission to some colleges (e.g., Harvard) is just plain competitive, so lots of outstanding students of each ethnic group you can imagine are not admitted each year. Do your best on your application, apply to a safety, and relax." Every year, the largest number of threads decrying affirmative action programs are posted just before admission results are announced (that is, in late winter) as students prepare to decry the grapes as too sour if they are not admitted to their favorite college. But the facts </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060810896-post4.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>show that plenty of college applicants are considered by colleges without regard to their ethnicity, and anyone can choose to be considered on that basis if that is their preference. </p>

<p>There has been discussion among the various College Confidential volunteer moderators and the College Confidential management about what to do about threads about affirmative action. Flame wars are against the terms of service here. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item&lt;/a> </p>

<p>The consensus is that the issue is a legitimate issue for on-topic, civil discussion here, because there is some unknown influence of ethnic categorization on the admission decisions of some colleges. (Perhaps some colleges are entirely indifferent to those categories, but that is one of many things that is unclear about the overall issue--how much affect the categories have on admission decisions.) What I like to do is lay out the verifiable FACTS about the issue, and invite people who disagree with me (who appear to be many :) ) to similarly lay out facts and calmly draw participants' attention to important issues. In this thread, I'd particularly like to thank madville for several of the points he has raised, which have kept me thinking long enough that I still need to respond to them in more detail. </p>

<p>Please let's look carefully at what the facts are as we discuss this contentious issue, and give the other participants credit for intending to do the right thing, according to their best understanding of the facts.</p>

<p>This is not really directly relevant to the AA discussion, but I just have a general comment. Any time I hear high achievers' accomplishments explained away as the result of "test prep" and guidance counselors, I feel like I want to vomit. Once you get beyond the level of a valedictorian in terms of intellectual talent, there are unique challenges you have to overcome--the main one being the antagonistic attitude of the school system (yes, even the well-funded ones.) And this antagonistic attitude is in proportion to the talent you have and how much you stick out. I transferred to a magnet high school and it was great there, but before that it was hell. </p>

<p>Another point: the talent level is very high at these magnet schools, so there is intense competition for the few spots at elite colleges. So I object to the general sentiment that everything is handed to these kids at the magnet high schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]

There will be the rare exception of the inner-directed student determined to extricate himself/herself from a lifetime in the 'hood, but if the colleges waited for a critical mass of these to apply, they would never achieve very much range in color hues on campus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They donā€™t need to wait. Just take a look at California post-1996. According to Henry</a> Payne, ā€œA study by The Pacific Legal Foundationā€™s Eryn Hadley found that elite schools have refocused resources on preparing ā€˜K-12 students for college life. The UC system now offers many race-neutral programs for individual students who are disadvantaged or attend low performing schools.ā€™ā€</p>

<p>
[quote]
The first was much more low-income than the second, which was a magnet school which required a test in order to get in and attend...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I must correct myself, it was an alternative school because drew it's students from among the school system.</p>

<p>"They donā€™t need to wait."</p>

<p>(1) The programs you're talking about will take time to see significant results. While waiting for a utopia that may never arrive (imbedded in the meaning of 'utopia'), other steps that right now affect student body composition nevertheless have their value. (Not to you, naturally, but actually to a very large segment of those applying to elites.)</p>

<p>(2) I was talking about the private elites, not UC. Race has nothing to do with UC admission. It's O/T, because race is not an admission consideration for UC.</p>

<p><a href="1">quote</a> The programs you're talking about will take time to see significant results. While waiting for a utopia that may never arrive (imbedded in the meaning of 'utopia'), other steps that right now affect student body composition nevertheless have their value. (Not to you, naturally, but actually to a very large segment of those applying to elites.)</p>

<p>(2) I was talking about the private elites, not UC. Race has nothing to do with UC admission. It's O/T, because race is not an admission consideration for UC.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Iā€™m not sure whether you realized it, but you implicitly admitted that compared to the programs Iā€™m referring to, race-based affirmative action is a quick and easy ā€œfixer upper.ā€ It doesnā€™t require ā€œidentify[ing] promising low-income, first generation college students and point[ing] them toward college.ā€ It doesnā€™t focus on ā€œmiddle school curricul[a] in mathematics, science and engineering to increase university admissions eligibility.ā€ It doesnā€™t help poor families with college preparation. (Reference</a>).</p>

<p>What does it do? It helps middle-class blacks.</p>