<p>^Do you have a sense of how much control one has over "intelligence " how well you do on tests?</p>
<p>for something like the SAT you can study for it…you have way more control over it then you do race…</p>
<p>Tom, Where did I say it was fair? You’re mixing up responses here. I didn’t say it was fair. It’s anything but fair. But this isn’t really about my opinion. I just said many colleges discriminate, regularly and openly, on a bunch of factors.</p>
<p>I’m not “ignoring the elephant;” I’m telling you why it’s in the room.</p>
<p>You’re right that U-M admits a number of students on items that look like “pure merit” via the metrics you describe. However, the reality is that those are NOT the only metrics. They use a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with grades + SATs. I can’t speak for Florida. </p>
<p>I think you might want to revisit your claim that U-M removed ANY competition for URMs. It might be less competitive, but not competitive at ALL? </p>
<p>As for “proving” that the school is better off, that’s a tough one for universities. If it were easier, I don’t think the U-M case would have gone all the way to SCOTUS. I know what the proponents of AA believe, however. They believe that having a diverse learning environment, including (in particular) racial and ethnic diversity, improves the learning environment. They believe it turns out graduates that are better prepared for the wider world. A lot of employers do, too, which was the primary reason behind their amicus briefs. I think some empirical research supports these notions, but not so much that everyone is convinced, obviously. And yes, there has been research that challenges those ideas, as well as a lot of opinions that it’s just bad, or harmful, or too unfair to be justified.</p>
<p>I’m just telling you what key policymakers U-M seem to believe about it. Some readers might find it useful or interesting to know why a college might do something that others find so “disgusting.” I think one of higher ed’s major failings is doing a crap job explaining why they do some of the things they do (AA being just one prime example).</p>
<p>
True, “reverse racism” doesn’t exist-racism does. I’d like to point out, however, that AA is not only racist, but sexist too. “Holistic admissions” is area of residence-ist, athlete-ist, legacy-ist, my-parents-donated-big-money-ist, some-random-quality-the-college-just-wants-to-have-ist, etc. Bottom-line-get over it, people…
Oh, and calling someone a name isn’t “racist”-racism is “The doctrine that race is the basic determinant of human abilities and that, therefore, the various racial groups constitute a hierarchy in which one group is properly regarded as superior to others. Racism has also been defined using the following formula: Power+Prejudice=Racism”. Calling a person “cracker”, the “N word” or any other epithet is just called insulting someone.</p>
<p>although i feel like we are getting onto a tangent, ppl can study for the SAT I and do better…I know alot of ppl who have taken it without any preparation, then studied, then did way better on it.
Also, my point was that your SAT score is much more controllable (in your hands) then your race would be (a product of what race your are born into).
Do I think that the SAT is a fair test, not really because it measures only a certain type of intelligence. But do I think that it follows a certain format and requires that a student acquire a certain type of knowledge and there is room for improvement…yeah.
As far as IQ tests go, that is not even relevant to the conversation because I was referring to tests taken (aka, SAT, ACT, AP exams) into account for college admissions (unless I guess you were a part of MENSA or something…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s what it is supposed to be about (not sure you’d get agreement on that everywhere, but I digress). But you and I know that the plain truth is, sometimes people get admitted for reasons that are beyond their control.</p>
<p>First of all, you’re right that it’s an imperfect comparison–you don’t have as much control over some factors as others. Race is one of those factors which is truly outside of your control. However, I think some people might argue that some of these factors are on a sliding scale of “control”. You have SOME control over how many APs you take, except what if your school only offers a limited number? You have SOME control over how good your grades are, but doesn’t natural aptitude also have something do with it? So that’s one way I don’t think the control/no control division is as black and white as it might first seem. </p>
<p>Another way to look at it is this: Applicants have attributes–some they worked for, some they were born with, some came about as a combination of choice and fate. Colleges want students with certain attributes. If you have those attributes, you may be admitted over someone who doesn’t have them. How you acquired those attributes may be only a secondary consideration. Or no consideration at all.</p>
<p>I agree with you that some applicants have attributes that they were born with, maybe someone is incredibly good at standardized tests, and of course that isn’t questioned, but race is obviously not something acquired. The color of your skin also does not mean that you suddenly have a diverse perspective…an African American individual who grew up in an all white society and a white kid that lived in that same society possibly might have similar perspectives…which sort of defeats the purpose of diversity. If it is based on socioeconomic status, I wouldn’t be writing this, but just because someone is of whatever skin color does not mean they are somehow different from their white or Asian peers. I feel that a white kid who has grown up in the ghetto deserves more of the benefits of something like AA then an African American kid that grew up in the upper middle class</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quotas are unconstitutional. </p>
<p>Why would there be something wrong with the way collegeboard assesses students simply because certain races get lower scores?</p>
<p>Tom you seem to post those numbers proudly in everyone of these kinds of threads. Get other sources to support your opinions. I will not and can not and shall not base my conclusions on the published studies of one university. You seem to want people to apply those same numbers to EVERY school just because those are the conditions that existed at UM. Maybe so… but Maybe not.</p>
<p>howfarwevecome, a lot of people agree that lower-SES students have valuable perspectives to offer (and, also agree with the additional argument that they might “deserve” the benefit). Some of the schools villified for AA programs based on race have programs that also assist candidates based on income. U-M, for example, gave the same boost to poor kids as it did to underrepresented minorities under its old system. One problem U-M could be criticized for, however, is that unlike race, there was no box to check. Sometimes your fee waiver status, or your counselor’s report (if they chose to share the info), or your high school demographics, might tell U-M you were lower-income, but it wasn’t as straightforward. That’s problematic from a consistency standpoint, and an oversight in the whole admissions process IMO.</p>
<p>It’s true that having a different skin tone doesn’t automatically imbue a person with unique perspectives–or the ability to share them with classmates. That’s a issue. Nor can one claim that a wealthy URM “needs” the consideration, either. To some degree, colleges seem to not care. I’ve wondered about that myself. I’ve speculated on a couple of reasons. </p>
<p>Some of it may be a desire to have a critical mass, to raise the comfort level of other minority students so you can continue to recruit and retain those who do bring a unique perspective. </p>
<p>Some of it may be to help educate people like me. I entered college well-meaning but very naive and sheltered. I had very little experience with non-whites, not because i was a bigot but because there was no opportunity where I was from. I would argue that for someone like me, it was just important for me to meet and get to know rich minority kids as poor minority kids. I should see people from all races from across the spectrum of backgrounds. You can reinforce the wrong kinds of stereotypes if you’re mainly–or exclusvely–recruiting only the most “disadvantaged” minorities to your campus.</p>
<p>The third reason may be the belief that a visibly racially diverse environment forces students to think more broadly and differently, in ways that are good for their mental development–even if it’s just visual, that is, even if those students aren’t choosing to share their perspectives. </p>
<p>That is surely an incomplete list. it’s just my guesses.</p>
<p>Undergirding all of this is the fact that college-going minority students are in “short supply” from the perspective of colleges. That makes recruiting them competitive. They want them, they can’t get as many of them as they’d like, and that is what drives some of the behavior in terms of admissions, scholarships, and so on. It’s not necessarily a belief that these students deserve the help due to some kind of disadvantage inherent in being black/hispanic/native american. It’s supply and demand.</p>
<p>Wow this is long.</p>
<p>Getting back to the original question posed by the OP, I feel that elite colleges are looking to use race as a means to try and diversify their incoming classes. Let’s face it, I feel that having a somewhat racially and culturally diverse class is an asset that colleges should strive for while minimally compromising the class’ academic quality (it really is a balancing act). I really believe that attending a school that is racially and culturally diverse is a way in which myself as a student has the ability to expose myself to completely different outlooks and viewpoints that I otherwise may not have been able to see had my college used academic standing as their sole criteria. A school with basically a bunch of absurdly smart white and asian kids isn’t exactly my idea of a good time.</p>
<p>With this being said, as for your dillemma, my personal viewpoint is this: if you connect culturally with your Native American heritage in a quantifiable way that will bring even some minor impact to your college then I would encourage you to list it. However, if you have never given much credence to your NA heritage and only now are dusting it off for the admissions process the I would view putting it down as very opportunistic and at the very least straddling and ethical line. If you choose to put it down I would make some attempt in another part of your application to make some reference to how your still in touch with that heritage (but certainly make sure that this doesn’t come across forced and a result fake). Ultimately its up to you, there’s no right or wrong answer only a decision that you’ll have to live with.</p>
<p>Hope I could be of some assistance, Best of Luck :)</p>
<p>This might be of interest to the OP.
[U.S</a>. Department of the Interior - How Do I Trace Indian Ancestry?](<a href=“http://www.doi.gov/ancestry.html]U.S”>http://www.doi.gov/ancestry.html)
Typically NA heritage of 1/4 and enrollment with a federally recognized tribe is required for federal NA scholarship.</p>
<p>I know exactly where the OP is coming from. I am 100% Hispanic and am bilingual, but I have not had to overcome significant challenges in my life. My parents worked very hard to get into this county and were poor for much of their life, but that hasn’t been the case for me. I was born in the U.S. and for the majority of my life my parents have had a 6-figure income. Even after all this I know that putting Hispanic on an application will give me an advantage.</p>
<p>I’m still going to do it, but I’m going to feel dirty afterwards :/.</p>
<p><em>This thread is going to be merged</em></p>
<p>Affirmative Action is not racist. It does not imply any race is better or worse than any other race. It is, however “discriminating” in the sense that it allows race to influence decisions if it means achieving a broader goal. </p>
<p>Understand that Affirmative Action in itself simply requires Colleges to ask and keep tally of the proportion of minorities attending their schools so the public can hold them accountable. </p>
<p>Allowing race to influence a decision is at the discretion of each individual college and they all do it in their own ways. It is no more “discriminating” than discriminating based on athletes, legacies, majors, interests, or any other non-academic related factor that goes into building a student body.</p>
<p>Why people choose to focus on this one? I have no idea</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that these positions and perspectives on race are so prominent aptly illustrate why those who enact diversity considerations in their admission policies demonstrate wisdom. If some of these ignorant perspectives were left to ferment in a homogenous academic environment, how long would it be until we would be revisiting the deplorable lessons from history’s past?</p>
<p>You can change your major, athletes, and interests, but your heritage isn’t changeable. It also most likely will not bring much to the college if you grew up in America since we all pretty much grew up in the same culture. If they grew up in another country it MAY be a slightly different story.</p>
<p>IMHO, just the fact that some don’t seem to see how growing up LOOKING different from most people effects your world view, is reason to pay attention to diversity. I also believe on African American growing up in an exclusively white middle class environment does not remedy everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, this doesn’t touch on race/ethnicity, but I have observed some really interesting differences in people’s upbringing, outlook, perspectives, and experience based on things like religion, geographic region, and socioeconomic status. Even within the framework of the shared american culture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While there are certainly common threads in american society, this quote embodies what’s wrong with some forms of thought. This opinion is so absurd, it make me wonder where this person grew up. This VERY thread demonstrates the varied perspectives on a common issue.</p>