Stop playing the race card

Chance Me / Match Me!
121

<p>JohnG,</p>

<p>I'm not against athletic and "development cases."</p>

<p>Assuming the school does award athletic scholarships, athletes are paid for their performance and potential. They can help schools win titles, gain national recognition, and gain value if they are drafted to the professional leagues. In other words, athletes potentially benefit schools financially. So, I'm not against athlete preferences. They are paid because they are good. End of story.</p>

<p>Development cases - students admitted because 'daddy can pay big money.' So, where does this big money go? Maybe it funds the education of a smart, talented, hard-working student from a poor family. Maybe this student is "under-represented." Or, maybe this money goes to construction of a multicultural center. And, maybe this money goes to establish an endowed professorship. Daddy pays and helps the school. Junior gets to graduate with a decent GPA. I'd wager that the number of true development cases is dwarfed by the number of "under-represented" minorities.</p>

<p>To sum it up, schools actually benefit from admitting students under athlete and development cases. They're making an investment that can likely pay back a huge return.</p>

<p>Also, JohnG, there's a problem with your refusal to "blame the URM." How can you expect "under-represented" minorities to succeed if you're always telling them that mediocrity is acceptable?</p>

122

<p>Okay...
First of all, I NEVER said anything about Jewish students on this thread...However, most schools don't ask for a student's religious preference and admissions decisions are based WITHOUT REGARD TO RELIGION. However, and for the record, many schools are starting to become rather sensitive to the number of (<em>presumed</em>) Jewish students on campus because there is such a nasty backlash about their <em>presumed</em> numbers at elite colleges. Nevertheless, although some people consider being Jewish a race, it is not considered as such with respect to affirmative action policies as it is considered a religious preference.</p>

<p>Bearcats, your point is not proven at all by the fact that there are more Asian American students at Berkeley and UCLA now that affirmative action is gone from the public higher education system in California. The UC system bases its decisions in most part on GPA and SAT scores ? very little else is considered in their admissions calculations. Most black and Latino students in the State of California, as well as other border states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Florida have historically not scored well on standardized tests. Why? Because THE REALITY of the situation is that they are, sadly, concentrated in the lowest part of the income distribution in these states and usually only have access to the poorest, most under-resourced schools in the state. They do not go to Harvard Westlake, the Brentwood School, Lick, the Branson School, Cate, Choate, Exeter, Andover, etc?most go to some of the worst high schools in the country where their college counselors are responsible for ?counseling? over 950 seniors a year. AGAIN ? THE SAT IS NOT A MEASURE OF INTELLIGENCE. If anything, IT IS A MEASURE OF ACHIEVEMENT WHICH IS LARGELY AFFECTED BY THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION ONE RECEIVES. This is why there are large disparities in the numbers of white and Asian American students attending Berkeley and UCLA versus the numbers of black and Latino students at these schools. This is not to say that there are not poor Asian American students going to crappy high schools or white students in the state attending crappy high schools (let me get that out before you start putting words into my mouth); however, in general, white and Asian American students have more privileged secondary educations in this country than black and Latino students do. THIS IS A FACT, PEOPLE. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, READ SOME REAL RESEARCH ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT. </p>

<p>My comments with respect to affirmative action affecting individuals at the micro level is completely accurate bearcats. If you were to isolate the effect (which several reseachers have), a white or Asian American student?s chances of being admitted to a college without affirmative action would increase only by about 1-2%, which is statistically insignificant. In this respect, affirmative action has little effect on individuals applying to selective colleges. </p>

<p>k&s ? YES, Asian American students are regarded as URMs in college admissions because, as a group, they are a minority in this country. Yes, they are overrepresented at many elite colleges and universities with respect to their numbers in the general American population. However, because they make up such a small proportion of the American population, they are considered using affirmative action policies. This has been true at all the selective colleges I have worked at; in addition, several of my peers working at other selective schools ? including Ivies, UVA, UNC, Vanderbilt, Emory, Pomona, Bowdoin, Swarthmore, just to name a few ? all tell me the same thing with respect to their admissions process. As I mentioned in another post in a different thread, the comparison of admit rates for Asian American students versus Jewish students is hugely flawed, largely because most schools DO NOT ASK FOR YOUR RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND CANNOT USE IT IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. However, again, most of the Jewish students gaining admission to top schools ARE WHITE?you cannot look at them the same way you look at racial groups ? its comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples. There isn?t a ?Jewish? box on the Common Application. Please tell me with what authority you speak with when you state that Asian Americans are not considered URMs in college admissions ? I would love to know. Just because they have the lowest admit rate at certain schools does not mean they aren?t considered URMs. </p>

<p>Part of the problem, however, is that many Asian American students from the same high schools or the same areas all apply to the same colleges ? thus, they compete with themselves (in what we call a ?school group? or a geographical region) and not necessarily with the whole applicant pool. This also happens to white students ALL THE TIME at schools all over the country. This also happens to Latino students applying to private colleges in California who are from California. This also happens to black students in the Northeast applying to private colleges in New York City and the South. I have a high school on my docket right now from which 30 students have applied?28 are Korean-American. Many of them are capable of doing the work at my school?does that mean they are all going to get in? No. Does this mean they are admissible? No. Does this mean they are compelling? No. Am I discriminating against the 26 who aren?t getting in this year? Absolutely not. Because they all go to the same high school and have access to the same educational resources there, I am probably going to admit the 2 students from this high school who did the most with what was available, in conjunction with other factors like their EC involvement, their recs, their essays, the interviews, etc?in much the same way I will be choosing the 2 kids to admit from another school where 25 of the 26 students who have applied are white and the same way I will be choosing the 1 kid to admit from another school where 10 of the 13 kids who have applied are Latino. However, the difference here is that, in general, you don?t see a lot of ?school groups? predominantly composed of black or Latino students; you do see a lot of school groups dominated by Asian American or white students. Why? Because in general they go to better, smaller schools, are better informed by counseling staff, and usually have parents who have attended college or who are familiar with the process in the United States. Are there exceptions to this rule? Certainly (again, let me get this out before you put words into my mouth again). But the reality is that black and Latino students in this country - in general - are attending poorer, less efficient, lower-funded, less-resourced schools than their white and Asian American peers are. AGAIN, DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT. </p>

<p>Your comment in response to my mentioning that the Latino and black applicant pools are highly self-selective at selective colleges disgusts me. Firstly, who are you to judge who is ?qualified? and who is not? Who are you? Secondly, what metrics are you using to define ?qualified?? SAT scores and GPA? Thirdly, what world do you live in? One where everyone in this country has the same opportunities to achieve? One where racism does not exist? One where black students are treated in the same way as their nonblack peers? </p>

<p>HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT I THINK ALL ASIAN STUDENTS ARE THE SAME! Stop making gross generalizations about people ? myself included. And yes, a school that is predominantly Asian American and white students (like some of the UCs which are nearly 85% Asian American and white) is pretty darn homogeneous in terms of racial makeup IMO. And, for the record, the Asian American populations of Berkeley and UCLA aren?t terribly ?diverse? ? they are predominantly Korean American and Chinese American ? aren?t a lot of Thais, Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Filippino, Indonesian, or Burmese American students mixed in there. </p>

<p>Your assumptions are grossly misinformed k&s?do some real research in educational attainment and talk to people respectfully rather than insulting them on a personal level, putting words in their mouths, and making conclusions that have no quantifiable or real qualifiable evidence to support them. Your remarks are terribly immature, terribly misinformed, terribly ignorant, and reflect your level of intellectual engagement in this discourse. Do not presume you know anything about what goes on in admissions offices just because you?ve read a few articles ? get a graduate degree in education and work in higher education for a decade and then tell others what the reality is?</p>

123

<p>"My comments with respect to affirmative action affecting individuals at the micro level is completely accurate bearcats. If you were to isolate the effect (which several reseachers have), a white or Asian American student?s chances of being admitted to a college without affirmative action would increase only by about 1-2%, which is statistically insignificant. In this respect, affirmative action has little effect on individuals applying to selective colleges. "</p>

<p>If so, why do you think Texas had to adopt the 10% rule after AA was banned to "preserve diversity" or whatever their president call it, if it does not change the racial balance in a large scale.</p>

124

<p>to AdOfficer: why is it that you think you can tell us all that we don't know how AA works? It is pretty simple- colleges discriminate on the basis of skin color. Will it be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection for all of us? No. Will it be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection for some of us? Yes. And, where do you get the idea that URM must be more physcologically hurt from high school? Unless you want to have every college applicant talk to a shrink before making your decision, you shouldn't get to decide that a URM had a harder high school experience. </p>

<p>An injustice somewhere is an injustice everywhere. Your argument that it is only a small part of the whole admissions scheme holds no weight. There is no excuse for colleges to discriminate, even if it is for a small number of students. All we want is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ADMISSIONS... what a novel idea.</p>

125

<p>bearcats...Texas did not ban affirmative action to "preserve diversity"...they passed the 10% law so preserve diversity because so many of their high schools are segregated - this is similar to the "eligibility in local context" rule in California. </p>

<p>oracle...until every student in this country has the same opportunity to achieve academically as everyone else in this country, regardless of their race or income or whatever, NO ONE is going to be admitted to any selective college under "equal opportunity"...to ignore the privilege (or lack thereof) that is associated with a student's race in the country is really ignorant and short-sighted, plain and simple. Every year I walk into hundreds of high schools across the country and it is <em>painful</em> to see the disparities between races - who gets the best counseling, who gets the better teachers, who is tracked into what curriculum...</p>

<p>i'm not trying to give anyone a complex, but facing discrimination on a daily basis at school affects your educational achievements...it weighs heavily on one's psyche and affects one's self-esteem. again, PLENTY of educational research on this topic...</p>

126

<p>i said..texas passed 10% law to "preserve diversity"...meaning that they realize there will be a huge change in racial composition of the school becoz of the banning of AA...</p>

127

<p>AdOfficer would you please explain your comment:</p>

<p>"However for the record many schools are starting to become rather sensitive to the number of (presumed) Jewish students on campus because there is such a nasty backlash..."</p>

<p>I don't want to presume the meaning of the comment but would appreciate a clearification before I decide to comment.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dana's Dad</p>

128

<p>AdOfficer...</p>

<p>"until every student in this country has the same opportunity to achieve academically as everyone else in this country, regardless of their race or income or whatever, NO ONE is going to be admitted to any selective college under "equal opportunity""</p>

<p>I see, so until America becomes a utopia, admissions discrimination must continue? </p>

<p>"...to ignore the privilege (or lack thereof) that is associated with a student's race in the country is really ignorant and short-sighted"</p>

<p>With that reasoning, developmental candidates should not benefit. Under the current system, rich kids get the bar lowered, URM's get the bar lowered...and then the rest of us have to compete for the remaining spots. There is clearly a double-standard when colleges claim to care about the disadvantaged, while at the same time help the super-priveleged get in. </p>

<p>"Every year I walk into hundreds of high schools across the country and it is <em>painful</em> to see the disparities between races - who gets the best counseling, who gets the better teachers, who is tracked into what curriculum..."</p>

<p>That doesn't sound like a race issue, that sounds like an income issue. If you want to level the playing field (obviously richer schools have better teachers/counselors)...then change AA to socio-economic action. Nobody has a problem with that- it is a legitamte approach, but the only reason that no college would dare do that is because THERE ARE POOR WHITES/ASIANS also, and that means the diversity stats would decrease, and the politically correct police would ruin the school's reputation. </p>

<p>btw AdOfficer... i really do appreciate you debating us because most adofficers hide behind their desks when anyone challenges AA</p>

129

<p>Adofficer - You are beating a dead horse. Sometimes because of privilege, people have a hard time dealing with the idea that if it doesn't happen to them, it doesn't happen. Narcissistic!!</p>

<p>People don't understand certain truths, especially when they are staring them in the face.</p>

<p>Asians are 3-4% of the population, but make up 15 - 25% of some college campuses, sometimes even 41%(UC-B).</p>

<p>Whites are neutral when it comes to AA, meaning it does not affect their numbers either way.</p>

<p>Blacks make up 12% of the population, yet their presence on college campuses average only 2-6%.</p>

<p>Who is losing seats by the numbers??????????????????????????</p>

<p>Trying to help Adcom.</p>

130

<p>This is not what was intended. ** This was not supposed to be an AA argument *. The OP was talking about how PEOPLE HERE ON CC were regarding URM applicants requests to have their chances evaluated, especially black and hispanic applicants. Apparently she wanted to have her chances reviewed honestly, and she did not get very good answers, as people * grossly overestimated ** her chances, which made the advice not helpful to her at all.</p>

<p>Everyone is getting confused as to thinking this is a thread about why its often easier, although slightly, for a URM applicant to gain admission to colleges. Even worse people think it is a thread about AA. This is not of the OP's concern. First of all, I would guess that AA at private universities really only kicks in for URMs if they come from a poor high school, are low-income, OR don't have really great SAT scores. </p>

<p>As a URM that has not suffered these problems, the effect that this kind of preference had on me as an applicant was surely not as great. I grew up in an upper-middle class area, went to a prep school in PA, etc. Now my parents are alumni interviewers for a certain university, and they go to underfunded and poor schools in South Chicago and greater Chicagoland. They will tell you that the university puts much different emphasis on URMs from lower-income backgrounds, but they still have to be extremely motivated, have top marks, etc. </p>

<p>So in conclusion, this entire thread exemplifies why the OP is upset. So many people at CC just have no idea that the things they say to Black and Hispanic applicants on the forum can be very caustic, to put it lightly. There are many black students that just want honest evaluations, and people are giving them the "you'll get in everywhere because of AA" treatment. Of course I know that URMs have a slightly better time of it, but that shouldn't obscure that students accomplishments or more importantly, that students weaknesses and faults.</p>

<p>It is a pleasure as always to elucidate the truth, especially to people who are willing to listen.</p>

<p>tokyo</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
...thus, they compete with themselves (in what we call a ?school group? or a geographical region) and not necessarily with the whole applicant pool.

[/quote]
AdOfficer, you rarely see this honesty from an admissions officer. Even on the colleges' websites, they will deny this fact. </p>

<p>Would you mind reading post #88? I'm interested in knowing if family size is considered by admissions officers. Thanks.</p>

132

<p>Regarding AdOfficer's statement, "...thus, they compete with themselves (in what we call a 'school group' or a geographical region) and not necessarily with the whole applicant pool," if this is indeed true, then it's yet another reason to support race-blind admissions.</p>

<p>Under the current system, students are not being fairly evaluated based on their accomplishments, interests, and writing skills. They are being lumped into groups, and their applications are read with a predetermined mindset.</p>

<p>If "diversity" as American liberal higher education defines it is the goal, then quotas are really the only way to ensure it. Of course, they're illegal, so the next best thing is "holistic" admissions (i.e. making judgments based on race).</p>

<p>I have nothing against evaluating a student's community involvement, essays, and extracurriculars. Several parents refuse to acknowledge that I do support the evaluation of such factors. Having that said, the one factor I will never support is race. I believe that it is wrong to make judgments based on race. Black is not synonymous with poor. Asian is not synonymous with "lack of passion."</p>

<p>
[quote]

First of all, I would guess that AA at private universities really only kicks in for URMs if they come from a poor high school, are low-income, OR don't have really great SAT scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tokyo, would you mind reconciling your guess with the observation that a rather large percentage of Blacks at Harvard are the children of immigrants?</p>

<p>If we don't want to see stupid comments like "you're going to get in because you're Black," then we should abandon the use of race in admissions.</p>

133

<p>The true myth is that some one is losing seats based on meritocracy.FALSE!!</p>

<p>Read the stats again.</p>

<p>Fabrizio, you are right in that 2nd and 3rd generation African Americans are a lot of what you see on selective college campuses, but the stats show that it is only 25%.</p>

<p>The problem here is that every time a White or Asian does not get into a college, some Black or Hispanic must have taken their seat. There just aren't enough of Blacks and Hispanics to go around to hold up to such a commitment. Guys the numbers just aren't there, and until you realize what the true meaning of UNDER REPRESENTED means, you're going to continue to miss the point.</p>

134

<p>fabrizio-</p>

<p>I see qualified URMs adding value to schools in the same fashion as varsity athletes. But the AA admissions is more civil than sports because greedy and desperate coaches pressure some schools to admit underqualified student/athletes. Scoring tochdowns and baskets are no exceptions. You call it adding value, I call it exploitation.</p>

<p>Same goes for big donors. BTW, maybe one day more minorities will be in a position to buy their way into schools.</p>

<p>I didn't see your justification for all of the "good ole boy" admissions.</p>

<p>Also, what is your take on "white privilege". Many of these kids (and the big ones too) on this board are soooooooo use to having things there way, they can stand the thought of not getting every imaginable advantage/break. What is that teaching them about greed, fairness, past history, etc?</p>

135

<p>This is another reason to support AA:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20071%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20071&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

136

<p>Actually Fabrizio I just heard about the issue with Black immigrants in an article, I believe the study was done by teams at Princeton and UPenn. </p>

<p>I can't really reconcile with that because I was using Chicago as an example, and there the population of Black immigrants is tiny (relative to the total black population) compared to the New York metro area, DC Metro Area, and the Southern Tech corridor.</p>

137

<p>tokyo,
I do understand what you mentioned in your post 130 there. Our GC has learned that results, esp. for Elites, are so unpredictable (not "random," though, just unpredictable because the mix will change the odds with each new round), that she speaks in the broadest generalities. While frustrating for students & families (perhaps), I think it's a better way to go.</p>

<p>The mistake made by some of these GC's such as the complaint which surfaced here, is that (sorry to be repetitious!) the GC is evaluating the student's submissions as stand-alone. There is no such thing. Whether great, good, or mediocre, a student is in a comparative contest for each college. What our GC says is something like, "Based on our school's recent admissions history to this particular college, the student has a good chance to be in the match range," or "looking at recent admissions from our school, admission is not probable." Even to say that a virtually identical-profile student from the most recent round, did get into X college, can be irrelevant.</p>

138

<p>What the hell is the difference between a 2000 and a 2250? 250 "intelligence" points? More studying? Taking the test 3 times?</p>

<p>The difference between a 3.95 and 3.65? .3 "intellegence" points? .3 "hardworking" points? Two hours a day of social interaction lost?</p>

<p>The people accepted to top universities are all qualified. A slightly higher SAT or GPA does not make an applicant "more qualified." For the top Us, qualified is qualified - the accepted students can achieve fine GPAs at these colleges if they put the effort in.</p>

<p>In the real world no one cares what your GPA or test scores are so long they meet the minimum requirment. Colleges are looking for people who have initiative and show leadership qualities. They are looking for people who think for themselves. URM's are *generally<a href="Moreso%20than%20their%20asian/caucasian%20conterparts">/i</a> in envoirnments where there isn't a gravitation towards academics. Therefore an academically inclined URM is more likely to be so despite a culture going in a different, even opposite, direction. This signifies individuality, self-motivation, ability to defy cultural norms...LEADERSHIP QUALITIES. The person being discussed is more likely to have decided for himself that he values and loves academics.</p>

<p>If an ORM is in a similar situation, college see this.</p>

<p>Now an asian/caucasion in an envoirnment where academics and education are stressed (more likely than that of a URM) would be disregarded if he were to defy cultural norms and not be an academic (after all, colleges are academic institutions). If he were an academic at the normal level of the culture he was born into (even if it may be a high level), then he would just be "normal." Colleges want students who have broken from normalcy; students who also do things that are indicative of the student's intent to continue to break norms - LEADERS. A student may do this through extra academics (if a 4.0 is "normal" then college courses, academic competitions, etc...) or through extra-curriculars. ie: Community service is certainly a worthwhile activity, but almost every student does it - colleges want to see students who want and love to do it.</p>

<p>Opponents and propenents of AA - Please stop using individual examples (exceptions) as evidence. Unfortunantly, generalizations have to be made.</p>

<p>Also, with respect to ORMs being in low income envoirnments and URMs being in high income envoirnments - this is a wild exception to the rule. At the prep school I went to through junior year I was one of four(?) URMS (I'm even half white) in a ninety person class. All URMs in my class were well off, but the experience is definitely different. The jokes and bias float around constantly and we were always "representitives of our race(s)."</p>

<p>Is AA wrong? Yes
Is in a necessary evil? Colleges insist so until more fundamental problems (primary education) out of their grasp are fixed.</p>

139

<p>JohnG,</p>

<p>I am of the opinion that qualified "under-represented" minority students can be admitted strictly by their interests, merits, and talents. I do not believe that preferential treatment is necessary to ensure their admittance. I also do not believe that these students add value based on their skin color. I believe they add value based on their academic and extracurricular strengths and passions.</p>

<p>When I used the phrase "adding value," I was referring to the event that a student is drafted to the professional leagues of his sport. For example, the student from USC who ends up being a first-round draft pick is going to make USC more attractive.</p>

<p>It is entirely possible that one day, *minorities<a href="%22under-represented%22%20or%20not">/i</a> will be in positions to buy acceptances.</p>

<p>Hmm, "good ol' boy" admissions. Is that where a student gets in due to nepotism or other forms of favoritism? If so, then I have no support for it. If a student needs to be admitted under such a fashion, then nobody really benefits. The student gets into an environment he is unprepared for. The school only gets money in the form of tuition and fees. Pretty inefficient if you ask me. A good way to end this? Remove the race and gender boxes and assign a random ID to each applicant.</p>

<p>I don't define "White privilege" the same way you do. To me, it's unconscious preferential treatment by non-self-hating Whites to other Whites. Based on your use of the phrase, I'd call that just plain selfishness.</p>

<p>I recognize and acknowledge that our nation has wronged many minority groups in the past. However, I believe that reverse discrimination is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.</p>

140

<p>Re: Post 135</p>

<p>bexline,</p>

<p>No, that is not another reason to support racial preferences. That is a reason to NOT support them.</p>

<p>These students weren't being treated as individuals; they were being treated as part of a group.</p>

<p>Affirmative action as currently practiced makes it difficult for students to be seen as individuals. Their group affiliation causes biased judgments.</p>