<p>I’m the stereotypical “Asian” and I just got in to Stanford. I live in the Bay Area, go to a private high school where 20 other people applied REA, including some minorities, and I was the only one that got in. I have no outstanding rewards, and many people had similar SAT’s, GPA, class schedule, and Extra-curriculars. Is it possible I’m just an oddball and my case has nothing to do with this argument? Possibly.</p>
<p>^^ well anecdotal evidence can’t really be used to back any arguments effectively.</p>
<p>That being said, its pretty clear that at all the elite schools, being Asian is a disadvantage when it comes to applying into those schools. </p>
<p>I personally think there should be affirmative action, but it should not be in the form it is in now. Economic class has much more of an effect on a students upbringings than race. If your family is black or Hispanic and they earn 200K+, I am willing to bet that you were given the same opportunities as an Asian or white student from the same economic background. </p>
<p>Instead, they should focus affirmative action on class. One common argument for the current racial argument is that minorities of color are disproportional poor, well then I say we tackle the problem at its roots. If affirmative action is based on class, then it will actually help the minorities that truly need help, instead of lowering the bar for upper class minority kids. (I’m sure this argument is a pretty common one)</p>
<p>^yeah it is a common argument. </p>
<p>Doing your strategy would lessen the number of URMs and would accordingly decrease campus diversity in terms of culture. Maybe some black admit I know is filthy rich but he’s still black. Skin color matters. We’re not in a post-racial society.</p>
<p>Also admitting people of lower economic status decreases the class of a university. I’m not elitist or anything but there are a lot of people at Stanford who lack class. These aren’t the rich kids. They aren’t the middle class either. We’re not in a classless society. This is all the more evident when you throw these classes together at a place like Stanford. Not saying one class is necessarily better than the other, but they call it class for a reason. People in the upper class have class. Maybe not character, but class. I doubt this is the university’s rationale for not admitting more from the lower class, but just one of my rationales. This isn’t a reason not to admit from the lower class, because there are a lot of fine lower class people I know who have a ton of dignity, but Stanford should really try to maximize the class it gets from this and all other subgroups. I fear it doesn’t. </p>
<p>Also admissions already does this kind of preference. They take into account the context of the applicant. So they cut some (maybe more?) slack if the applicant went to a poor school, grew up in a poor neighborhood, whatever. Regardless of race. That is why a poor but less qualified Asian can get in when if he were the same applicant from an elite high school he’d have no chance. It sets people up for failure, but whatever so do a lot of things Stanford admissions does. </p>
<p>The middle class gets screwed in all of this. They’re somewhat lumped into the upper class in terms of how colleges view their qualifications, but they don’t get admissions boosts like the upper class does (legacy, developmental admit, athletes from rich sports, etc.). Which sucks, because the middle class has more than enough class to fit in. And they are more than smart enough to succeed.</p>
<p>^^ I can understand why a school would admit based on race on culture/diversity reasons, but I just don’t like it when thats done in the name of social justice.</p>
<p>^Really!? Because when I look at it from a social justice perspective I am all for AA. Going off Rawl’s conception of social justice, let’s do a little thought experiment. </p>
<p>You suddenly forget your race, class, intelligence, everything. You know you’re an American teenager applying to college. I tell you there’s a chance you could be black, and give you general statistics about black people (average income, percent in poverty, the types of schools they attend, etc.). I do the same with other races, such as white, Hispanic, and Asian. </p>
<p>In terms of maximizing your chances at gaining admission to colleges, with no preference structures yet in place, which race would you prefer to be? (If your answer is something other than Asian or white, you should probably look at some facts). But you’re an American, thus you have a chance of being black or Hispanic. so what do you do? You’ll want to insure against this undesirable outcome. </p>
<p>If you accept the ideas of social justice, you will put in place a law that benefits blacks and Hispanics in college admissions (at the expense of whites and Asians). In effect it’s a compromise. If you ended up as an Asian or white you’d be willing to compromise a bit in return for “protecting” against the outcome of you being black or Hispanic.</p>
<p>Unless you are trying to say you aren’t a proponent of social justice. Which is understandable. But maybe have some empathy for those not as fortunate as you.</p>
<p>What about the atheists ):</p>
<p>There is some validity to AA, but really, it’s hard to establish an exact extent to which we can correct inequalities based on past discrimination. If such is the case, why can’t we extent AA to Jews, Japanese Americans, and Italian AMericans, who encountered much outright discrimination and imprisonment in the past?</p>
<p>I wish it was based more on socioeconomic status than race. Because with racial affirmative action we end up with the kids that had the most advantages within their race while ignoring kids who maybe didn’t have all the advantages but were white or Asian.</p>
<p>I think a white kid who rose out of the ghetto should have more credit than a black kid who’s lived in the lap of luxury (I know one, and he’s a great guy, but I think he should compare with other upper-class people.)
I don’t think that just because and applicant is black or Hispanic, you should assume that the applicant has overcome obstacles. Socioeconomic status and location are bigger obstacles.</p>
<p>But, it’s OK, I got into Stanford and I’m a white girl :D</p>
<p>I’ve only read the last page of this thread but… my goodness Senior0991!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see. So for you the diversity of “culture” is represented by people’s skin colors. Do you know that many people who mark down “African American” on their college application are only partially black, perhaps even only black by heritage, and that a very, very small percent of a top school’s campus actually have dark skin? It’s unusually rare, considering the percentage of African American students that is said to be admitted each year, to meet someone who’s truly a low-income, black, native born African American student whom the affirmative action policy is meant to benefit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly don’t know whether I should express :eek: or :o. Trust me, this is simply your reason, not the university’s. As for the hypothetical scenario you gave in Post#125, you are stereotyping the different ethnicities to a tremendous extent. </p>
<p>/further posts for me on this thread. </p>
<p>
That’s complete crap. You clearly didn’t understand my post. The point of the hypothetical is to look at the average outcomes of these different races in terms of education. It’s to look at statistics, not stereotypes. How the **** did I stereotype any ethnicity in that post? Please tell me, because I have no idea.</p>
<p>Think about it this way: If your one goal before being born was to get into a selective college with no AA policy, and you could decide your race (and nothing else), would you really decide to be black/Hispanic over being white/Asian? I’m not racist, or stereotyping, to say that I’d rather be white or Asian. Look at the statistics. This is not some innocent stereotype. This is real. </p>
<p>
Yes. I thought I made that clear. </p>
<p>
That’s something I’d change. Because I take the social justice and campus diversity perspective. From what I’m guessing (correct me if I’m wrong), 25% black more often than not isn’t going to have very black skin, or grow up in a black culture, or have the same hardships that the average 100% black faces. I’d draw the line at 50% (which definitely counts), maybe 25% if I’m wrong about the things I said above. </p>
<p>Anyways this is irrelevant though, because removing AA (post 122, which I was responding to) will decrease the numbers of all students who report themselves as black, including those that are 100% black. </p>
<p>
Who said anything about having to be low-income or native born (I assume that means US)? That’s just who you think should benefit. The universities who want “diversity” and don’t care if a black guy is rich or poor obviously disagree. </p>
<p>
I didn’t need you to tell me that, as I pretty much said that in my post. Although until you work for University Admissions you can’t tell me with certainty that this is not their rationale. Only they know. </p>
<p>And what’s so shocking about what I said? Is there a problem with a university and its students wanting a bit of class? Class here referring to “colloquial distinction or high quality in appearance, behaviour, etc.; stylishness.” I probably should have defined that in my first post. Stanford lacks class. </p>
<p>Now, you’re shocked that I said the lower class as a whole has less class than the upper class? Let’s get real. Like I was saying, there are plenty of lower class applicants who have class. Stanford should try to get these people in over non-classy applicants from the same lower class, other things equal. That’s not so controversial, is it? </p>
<p>
Does this mean you’re done? Wow that’s convenient. Unfairly criticize my posts and leave. Man up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you explain why skin color matters? You mention that statistically speaking, blacks/hispanics are disadvantaged. Yes. This is true. Anyone who denies this is a fool. But the college admissions process evaluates INDIVIDUALS and not groups. As Supreme Court Justice Powell stated in his decision in *University of California v. Bakke *, “A black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.” Yet, Powell’s hypocrisy is noted because the “rights established [by the fourteenth amendment] are individual rights.” While SCOTUS decisions apply to only public universities, most private institutions recognize decisions made for public institutions. Therefore, you cannot generalize when talking about college admissions.</p>
<p>Do you really believe that simply because a person is black that they are inherently different from a white person? Did you know that (according to a study published by UMD of over 700000 students) that black applicants whose family income is over $100000 score essentially equally to whites? Each applicant needs to be considered in their individual context for achievement, obstacles limiting such achievement, and potential. This can be done in a race-neutral manner. In your honest opinion, do you believe that a black applicant, who was adopted by a white family at a very young age, lived in a white neighborhood, and hung out with white friends can provide a different perspective than a white applicant (adopted under the same conditions)?</p>
<p>Your “social justice” perspective was also shot down in Bakke. Public Universities (and once again, assuming the privates follow the same guidelines established by the SCOTUS) cannot use the justification of “righting past discrimination” because the court has never established a precedent where one group can be harmed in favor of another without “judicial, legislative or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations” and “In such a case, the extent of the injury and the consequent remedy will have been judicially, legislatively, or administratively defined”</p>
<p>Your diversity perspective is acceptable (as established in Bakke). However, I do not believe that diversity would decrease if race-based admissions were eliminated. Perhaps superficially, when looking at statistics. But in terms of the academic environment, where multiple “perspectives” is the primary rationale for educational diversity, it would not be changed. Unless you feel that every single URM is at an inherent disadvantage (i.e. its in their DNA), then the qualified applicants will show, regardless of race. If you think that it is an inherent disadvantage, then you also must believe that URM’s are inherently inferior. Also, “Qualified” is a loose term. A student that lives in a ghetto (particularly a gang-prevalent one) should not be expected to score as high on SAT’s or other standardized tests. A student that attends a “feeder” school should be expected to score very highly. By appropriately distributing socioeconomic status/and qualitative “barrier” factors (note: discrimination based on wealth is acceptable as established in the Rodriguez case of 1973) the minority admit/“diversity” should not change much.</p>
<p>Race-neutrality at the University is essential for eliminating future discrimination.</p>
<p>
It matters for the campus aesthetic. It matters because if we want all races to feel comfortable here, there needs to be some people who share, if only one thing, the same skin color. It matters because a lot of the time a member of a certain race will bring aspects of that culture with them, even if all he can bring is what it’s like to be black or Hispanic or Asian in America. I’d be making the same argument if Asians were getting left out. </p>
<p>
So? Black applicants whose family income is over 100,000 score far better than whites on being black. </p>
<p>
You can generalize when you talk about why something should be, which is what I’ve been doing. </p>
<p>
See reasons after the first quote. It’s not just about bringing aspects of black culture. Really for me personally it comes down to skin color. Frankly I’m not going to meet most of the black students here. But I will see them. </p>
<p>
I’m making a normative claim with the social justice stuff. I know that’s not the justification schools or the Supreme Court uses. Doesn’t make it wrong. Social justice as I put it wouldn’t be righting past discrimination, but providing an egalitarian framework to correct for current injustices. </p>
<p>
The admissions system of universities does not select students only based on how they will contribute to the academic environment (See: athletes, celebrity admits, etc). There is a broader aim in most universities today, and it extends far beyond the classroom. Also superficial diversity is also diversity. It’s also, by definition, the easiest one to recognize, which is important for students who want to come to a diverse university. </p>
<p>
That is a huge leap on your part. I said in terms of college admissions, the prospect for the average URM is worse than that for the average white/Asian. That’s a fact. I said nothing about the status of URMs in other regards, but you jumped to that conclusion. Maybe you should be asking yourself why you did so? </p>
<p>
Haha the whole point of college admissions is to discriminate! Between those that should be admitted to the university and those that shouldn’t. I guess you want to accept (or reject) every applicant. To fit the current class size, I think you’d need to eliminate 28,000 or so applicants every year. Knowing you you’d probably end up in jail before you eliminated your first target. </p>
<p>But seriously, there’s a discord between our posts. You mainly talk about what is from the Supreme Court’s perspective. I talk more about what should be from a student’s perspective. You may fool some people with your SCOTUS references, and they may be led to believe that because the Court says something that’s the way it should be. But you’re not going to fool me. I hope you develop some more opinions of your own instead of banking on the Court. After all the Court did once rule that descendants of slaves were not protected by the US Constitution. </p>
<p>I applaud your effort though. And you’ll probably get at least a few people on here to agree with you. No one but me is buying anything I’m saying. It’s probably cause I’m too smart, and too real, for all you guys ;).</p>
<p>while i generally agree with rawlsian approaches to ethical issues, i don’t think stanford really claims to being enacting AA for social justice. i think it’s more that they see the benefits of racial diversity in an undergraduate class.</p>
<p>^Yes you’re right as far as I know they don’t claim that. I’d imagine quite an uproar if they did. One of social justice’s main flaws is that even if we concede that something is not just and there are solutions to remedy the injustice, it may not be practical to even attempt these solutions.</p>
<p>Does this mean if i’m the opposite of the stereotypical asian applicant that I will be accepted? I’m above average but not over 2000 sat but I have a strong sports background and other ecs. Will that help me separate myself from the 2400 sat people and get accepted?</p>
<p>depends on the sports. Varsity football and, to a greater extent basketball, would stand out. Baseball would too. </p>
<p>Fencing, tennis, swimming, golf, etc. are all blah. </p>
<p>
Eh doing the former does not necessarily lead to the latter. Stanford accepts all kinds of people, and rejects all kinds of people too. It’s impossible to predict based on the information you’ve given us.</p>
<p>most people on CC think of like varsity team captain or varsity player for 3 years as strong sports background. for stanford strong sports background usually means on a nationally ranked team, one of the best in the state, etc. (to be good enough to be recruited). if you are simply referring to a strong sports background as an EC (and not in terms of being recruited), then the actual sport doesn’t matter as much.</p>
<p>^It matters a bit in differentiating oneself from similar people. If your case ever gets to committee (doubtful, that’s rare), and they are all looking at you and they see varsity basketball, that’s not common at Stanford, especially for an Asian applying to Stanford. That will turn heads. Varsity tennis wouldn’t, although it wouldn’t hurt your case at all.</p>
<p>'tis the truth
my roommate played varsity bball</p>
<p>It sounds like we are both arguing two arguments that don’t really exist on the same plane. You are running off the assumption that people agree with your opinion that campus diversity from an outsider’s/broad perspective. I am arguing from an insider’s/close up perspective. Both arguments have merits, and each is dependent on the assumption.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I personally don’t believe in things like campus aesthetic. The way something looks is not the same as the way it actually is. Just because a campus looks diverse, does not mean the culture is diverse. For example, my high school (private) appears to generally be a good mix of races and socioeconomic backgrounds, but in reality, its generally composed of upper middle class liberals. Yes, the campus appears diverse, but as a whole, the class rallies behind various causes that happen to be left-leaning. So a generalization isn’t really superficial. Perhaps my school is an exception to the general rule, but it appears to defy your assertion (though I realize as I write this that you are just going to have to trust me on this since there is no way for you to affirm or deny it).</p>
<p>Once again, since each applicant is reviewed individually, generalizing is not appropriate in the college admissions process. If perhaps, each applicant with a 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT was automatically admitted (in a way that generalizes applicants, such as at a large state university) then I would say that assumptions about people as a group is acceptable. Unfortunately, Stanford (and other colleges that review using a “holistic process”) reviews applicants individually. I suppose if this isn’t actually how it works, then yes, grouping is okay. But this is the way the universities advertise their process.</p>
<p>I guess I just don’t feel that any sort of superficial assumptions are good. Yes, it looks good for promoting it to donors and advocacy groups, but really, what educational purpose does having someone who looks different serve? (yes, I understand your point about students who want to go to a “diverse” university, but do you really believe that a significant amount of students will turn down HYPSM because they feel its not “diverse” enough?) Also, with regards to athletic/music/artistic recruits, at least those are meritocratic. An applicant can’t be unqualified, but their accomplishments in other fields should be noted. I disagree with allowing “celebrity” admits. It seems foolish to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your usage of “egalitarian” is questionable. Also, can you name a “current” injustice relevant to your point that wasn’t caused by past discrimination?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no I wasn’t suggesting that you did. It was the only logical alternative to my previous sentence:
In my logic, you need to pick one of the two suggested mindsets. The one you quoted was a sort of satirical “I know you don’t agree with this, so agree with my first point” mindset. So unless you can think of alternative mindset as to why diversity wouldn’t remain the same (or similar), then you have to agree that the qualified applicants will show, regardless of race.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure if this is serious… Yes, you are correct, but I meant societal racial discrimination. If we discriminate one way, then we perpetuate this discrimination. So eliminating it at the University is the first step towards eliminating other discrimination. Like to many of my classmates, whenever we hear of some URM getting into a selective college, lots will say, “it’s okay, they only got in because of AA.” Sadly, many of these students still have high GPA’s and SAT’s, but the common assumption is that these applicants are not competitive without URM. Or perhaps, with the black teacher that went to Harvard-“He was prob a 2.0 student at Harvard.” Its really sad because these racist assumptions are being continued.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no, I have been against affirmative action since I first heard about the issue. I just figured that concrete evidence by a (generally) accepted source would be accepted better than generalizations about philosophical theories. Like, I could have made a post on why affirmative action is wrong in college admissions talking about how it generally does this, generally does that. But instead I pulled sources from a research paper I just turned in :p</p>
<p>Also, IMO, the court hasn’t made the “wrong” decision since Korematsu. And Plessy was overturned. Basing it off of the 14th amendment, part of the Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land), their decision in Bakke (excluding my other points about the other, incorrect parts) was correct. If AA ever gets overturned, I suggest that you write to your congressmen/women to have them enact something to make it legal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah… I suppose so. I guessed, based off of the title, the popular opinion on this forum since it wasn’t extremely active.</p>
<p>Maybe you should create your own with a title that promotes your points? :p</p>
<p>Its like twisting survey questions to receive a certain response…
“Do you feel reverse discrimination against the majority should be constitutionally permissible?”
“Do you feel that the cultural discrimination experienced by minorities in the past should be corrected through government programs to help those minorities?”</p>
<p>I think, in a random survey, each question would produce different results, even though it essentially asks the same question!</p>