<p>A rising senior in the family prompted me to action and I discovered CC. In my search for relevant info, I came across numerous references to URM status as an absolute advantage. In contrast, ORM status is viewed as a clear disadvantage. I know the college admission process is not based on true meritocracy, but I think automatically putting an applicant in a biased category just based on the stated ethnicity is unjust and something should be done about it. I understand adcoms need to compensate for hardships and difficult circumstances, but I don't think URM by itself is the right vehicle for this. President Obama even said that his daughters should not be given preferential treatment because they are not in a disadvantaged socioeconomic class.</p>
<p>If increasing or improving diversity is the goal, then what kind of diversity are we aiming for? Diversity in skill, personality, interest, idea, view on life and approach to problem solving? Or diversity in culture and background? Or diversity in skin color? One can even argue that diversity in culture and background eventually maps to diversity of the first kind and therefore it should not be a primary pursuit. If the first kind is not enough, then are we ready to say that students in top colleges in China, Japan and Korea are in a huge disadvantage because these colleges don't have our URMs? Do all Chinese think alike? Do all Indians have the same view on life? Are we perpetuating stereotypes in our pursuit of "diversity"? What issues cannot be addressed without admitting or not admitting applicants based on their URM or ORM status?</p>
<p>Given that many of the most elite colleges only started admitting women fairly recently (within the last 30-40 years), and that discrimination against certain ethnic backgrounds was rampant in the Ivies, I’m not going to shed too many tears over Poor Rich White Males. </p>
<p>As for this:
</p>
<p>I couldn’t care less about the plight of students in top colleges in China, Japan and Korea. Their societies are totally different, what they value is totally different, and their educational goals are totally different.</p>
<p>PCP,
You’re new on CC, so you likely haven’t realized that this is a frequently discussed topic. Please see this thread on the Admissions forum (your other thread has been merged into it):</p>
<p>This is just Part 4 of a huge thread. If you want more discussion of diversity/race/URM, etc., just use the Search function, you’ll find all you want and more.</p>
<p>I don’t want to take anything away from entomom’s Moderator-wise post. Nevertheless, since I’m not certain that it is covered in the virtual mountains of RAM to which she points: </p>
<p>Your hypothetical question, slightly recast, is hardly even controversial. Are we ready to say that, as a general matter, the elites in China, Japan, and Korea are often poorly prepared to deal with culturally diverse populations, and challenged by that? Yes.</p>
<p>By the way, do institutions in China, Japan, and Korea use affirmative action (at least to some extent) to deal with ethno-cultural differences and historical inequities that have political and moral importance in those countries? I think the answer to that one is “yes”, too.</p>
<p>I doubt that the “bias” toward WASPs is as great as the bias toward ORMs. The ‘O’ in ORM is alarmingly highlighted. The rationale is - who can argue not taking a candidate when the group the candidate belongs to is already OVER represented?</p>