<p>curious14,</p>
<p>I am not a beneficiary of racial preferences.</p>
<p>^ nor am I such a beneficiary. And an earlier post of mine stated quite clearly that I am not fan of arbitrary racial preferences irrespective of the demonstrated, current merit of that student. More importantly, never would I presume that I -- unless I were viewing all applications in any admissions round at any college -- am in a position to judge who among the applicants is ultimately more meritorious than others while simultaneously adding interest, variety, and diversity to the student body -- with race considered, and without race considered.</p>
<p>Epiphany, </p>
<p>You act like it is a big deal that you are not in favor or rounding people up off the streets based on their race and sending them to HYPSM.</p>
<p>I think my response to this entire thread (which I confess to only having perused, not read carefully) is, "Life ain't fair. Deal with it." </p>
<p>You'll never be able to explain the nuances of college admission; it will never be transparent, because there are far too many issues that contribute to the process, and each has its own role and degree of importance. </p>
<p>Even if every stat were published, it wouldn't prevent some students from applying, because there are always going to be a few anomalies, low stat kids, etc., who don't fit the profile. As long as there are a couple of those, there will be students who feel like they have the same (long) shot. </p>
<p>I am actually way more irritated about how people finagle the financial aid system to their benefit (spending wildly, and then qualifying for massive aid, while others are thrifty and careful, and are expected to fund the whole bill themselves) than the actual admissions nuances.</p>
<p>In the end though, there will never be a way to know exactly who got in, for what reason, and who got aid, for what reason. It's easy to gripe about, but I am not certain what the end result of the griping is going to be, except a headache. JMO</p>
<p>Post 443: No. No such comparison or analogy can be made from either my recent post or my previous posts. It's that the word "preferences" (the word that was being discussed) assumes a lot -- a lot more than even the most fervent supporters of AA might be willing to accept. Preferences has arbitrary connotations to it which are not appropriate to AA as it actually operates.</p>
<p>"I am actually way more irritated about how people finagle the financial aid system to their benefit (spending wildly, and then qualifying for massive aid, while others are thrifty and careful, and are expected to fund the whole bill themselves)"</p>
<p>Allmusic, do you have a lot of evidence that there are significant numbers of such cases? (Generally, it's hard to "spend wildly" if you don't have it to spend in the first place; and a sudden drop in income, following a high enough income to "spend wildly" can be a red flag in the fin.aid office.)</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>First, in post 430, you asked me which “immediate effects” of Proposition 209 I spoke of. You listed “the number of African-Americans at Cal and UCLA declining” as well as the “‘massive’ increase of 187 blacks attending [the freshmen class] at UCR over a ten-year period” as my options.</p>
<p>I responded in post 435 that both counted.</p>
<p>Next, in post 437, you asked me if “the increase in Black enrollment at UCR after the passage of Prop 209 is evidence that Blacks recieved [sic] ‘preferential treatment’ before the passage of Prop 209.”</p>
<p>In the next post, I said that it did not. I repeated what I wrote in post 435, “That there were consequences stemming from the passage of Proposition 209 is strong evidence against the argument that ‘preferential treatment’ is nonexistent.”</p>
<p>Two of the many consequences were the options you gave me in post 430. The first consequence demonstrated that preferential treatment existed and had a big effect. The second consequence demonstrated that preferential treatment is not needed to help black students attend universities. Without any consideration of race, Riverside has an “over-represented” black freshmen class at 8%. I believe you will find it difficult to dispute that, given that California is 6.1% black.</p>
<p>I fail to see how I am “in the ‘quota’ camp that * so deride.” I have not proposed any quota system. You may have misinterpreted the following paragraph:</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I wrote before, Riverside’s percentage of black freshmen shows how perverse the phrase “over-represented” is. You ridiculed the 8% figure as being too low, but that percentage is higher than 6.1%, which means that blacks are “over-represented” at Riverside.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Notice how I always enclosed the phrase over-represented in quotation marks. As you doubtless know, I dislike this phrase, which is why I meant for that paragraph “[to] show how perverse” it is.</p>
<p>I dislike how you have no qualms dismissing Asian students at Riverside as “over-represented” (40% > 12%), but you will not extend that same courtesy to black students at Riverside, who are likewise “over-represented” (8% > 6.1%).</p>
<p>Why is that?</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>"Preferences" is actually a pretty mild term for it. "Preferences" would be accurate if all, other things being the same, colleges just preferred the URM candidate. A 200+ advantage, as reflected on the SAT's is a heck of a lot more than a simple preference.</p>
<p>Epiphany, only anecdotally, and "spend wildly" may be a bit too glib...what I mean is people who basically spent, rather than saved....so they took great vacations, bought fancier homes or did a lot of remodeling, sent their kids on expensive programs, rather than bank their money. On paper, they don't have lots of savings, although they have reasonable incomes.</p>
<p>People who have saved that money (with similar incomes) actually are burned in the financial aid side of things, because they have more assets. I have heard this again and again.</p>
<p>Allmusic,</p>
<p>It is hard to see how to fix this issue without either eliminating need based financial aid or excluding assets from the evaluation of need? Got any ideas?</p>
<p>Once again with the fallacies. The "200+" advantage is not a racially appropriated "advantage," in that there are plenty of non-URM's who get admitted to Elites with scores of 2180, yet who are superior to 2400-scorers in other ways. There are also URM's not from middle class backgrounds who are admitted with extremely high test scores (AND high grades, awards, etc.) </p>
<p>But I essentially agree with Allmusic on the overall thrust & tone of anti-AA arguments including those on this thread: it's a manifestation of chronic unhappiness with a system that will never please everybody, as long as qualified students of all races get rejected every year, in large numbers, by these handfuls of schools practicing AA.</p>
<p>That may be true, Allmusic (post 449), but if they have "reasonable incomes" they are probably still only getting reasonable aid, not full aid. It's difficult to believe that on a widespread basis, such families are being showered with aid when the bank accounts suddenly dry up. Perhaps they've shown you their award letters? </p>
<p>Yes, they could begin living like paupers & be in extreme poverty 'suddenly' for those 4 college years, but the reasons for that would have to be pretty convincing (and the practical sacrifices prolonged) for students in such families to first receive & then sustain those aid amounts. </p>
<p>I do agree with you that families often get 'punished' for college savings. (So do students, even more so!) And I think reform is definitely indicated for that.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>What are you talking about (post #451)? The 200+ point advantage is an average some URM's get more, some less but that is the average advantage and it amounts to a lot more than a simple "preference."</p>
<p>The 'advantage' that SOME get is a calculation that others have determined based on a focus on scores. It's not as if the committee sits around and says, "Hmm. Let's add a random 220 points to URM #____, just because he or she is a URM." Nor would it explain why many non-URM's get "bumps" just because they've demonstrated that they're way-better students than some of the 2400-scorers, who have been getting rejected by the dozens for years now at Elites. You can't limit this "advantage" to URM's because it is not so limited.</p>
<p>*On paper, they don't have lots of savings, although they have reasonable incomes.</p>
<p>People who have saved that money (with similar incomes) actually are burned in the financial aid side of things, because they have more assets. I have heard this again and again.*</p>
<p>If you just use the FAFSA- colleges are looking at income of custodial parent & dependents
PROFILE or schools own forms- look at income- of all possible contributors whether they have custody or not.
It looks at assets re: home equity- although some schools will allow that equity has been artificially increased through inflation, not appreciation.</p>
<p>Savings of parents are minimally considered- and retirement accounts are not considered- except in the year in which the money was earned.</p>
<p>I don't have the experience of seeing families with similar incomes- but different spending patterns- receiving different packages- unless their expenses- as with number of dependents are more.</p>
<p>What you might be seeing for example with schools that pledge to meet 100% of need, is that a school may give a better package- to a student with more merit in their application, and another student may get loans instead.
Still meeting need, but more self- help.</p>
<p>Many other schools gap of course, and might meet 80% of need for most students, but that means meeting 100% of need for those they really want, and 60% of need for students who are less competitive.</p>
<p>I don't think the process necessarily needs to be changed- but it could be more transparent with better information.
For example instead of hitting up new parents and telling them to set up accounts in their babys name- clarify that only if they are going to be able to cover all four years of college that way, is it a good idea.
Otherwise, put the money in the parents name where it isn't assessed so heavily.</p>
<h2>epiphany:"Um, no. Wrongly applied axioms. Sigh. Wish applied logic of the verbal variety were taught & tested consistently in high school + college. Definitely not true, as evident on CC."</h2>
<p>This is awfully pompous and unwarranted. I was going to ignore it, but you posted again saying essentially the same thing. I did use the word harping, which is somewhat inflammatory, but I havent implied that others are mentally deficient.
BTW, verbal logic is central to achievement in the humanities as well as science, and I assure you that I have had no problems whatsoever in any aspect of school.</p>
<p>Allow me to clarify what I meant by logic. In mathematics, logical arguments or proofs are constructed off of axioms. The axioms themselves are neither proven or disproventhey are merely assumptions you work off of. Now since this is real life and not mathematics, one can debate whether or not these axioms reflect reality. If someone constructs an argument based on the assumption that URMs get a boost of 500 SAT points, someone like AdOfficer can correct him. Sometimes, however, these axioms can not be proven or disproven but are merely reflective of ones belief system. For instance, Fabrizio and Drosselmeier disagree on whether society should correct for self-defeatist attitudes of URMs that are probably caused by past discrimination. I dont know how you show this assumption to be correct or incorrect. To summarize, by logic I am referring to the validity of the if-then statements rather than whether the if clauses are correct or justified. In my opinion, in most cases the axioms are the source of disagreement on this thread rather than the logic itself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your metaphor comparing a law in “my hands” to a noose around your neck is quite poetic. It’s difficult discussing with a person who thinks I want to kill him…
[/quote]
If you understand that my statement is metaphorical, then you would not have said such utter nonsense unless you are intentionally attempting to distort my meaning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It’s just a wee bit insulting for you to suggest that I want to deprive you of your life, particularly since there is no such mention of any ending of life in the language written by Mr. Connerly that has successfully passed in California, Washington, and Michigan.
[/quote]
But you’ve already admitted understanding that my words were metaphorical. So obviously you can’t understand them to mean what you have distorted them to mean here. It is because of this sort of willful dishonor that I do not think it wise to extend trust here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I understood the “basic” terms as you understood them, would I disagree with you on this issue?
[/quote]
Quite likely, but rather than merely employ your own terms in trying to make your case (which essentially reduces your efforts to mere propaganda), you would employ neutral terms, terms that all parties can accept. When I use a term to mean one thing, and then you intentionally use a term in response to define my term, you try to muddle the debate. When you use terms that differ from your opponent’s positions, and then attack those terms, you commit yet another fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you’re suggesting that American students are immune from the “hacking impulse” you refer to, then you must really think that our citizens are different from their fellow humans around the world.
[/quote]
It is our system that is different, that is superior to many systems around the world. When you advocate hiding race on college applications to create an impetus in, say, a white student, to gain an ethnic boost by joining a non-white ethnic club, you create a system that invites the sort of hacking that veritably defines systems in China. The greatness of the American system is that it leaves people free to pursue their interests. It is what we should always promote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You frequently accuse me of taking things out of context, but you don’t follow your own prescription. When I wrote that “[Connerly] seeks to use affirmative action” in post 362, you quoted the first two sentences, ignored the rest, and responded with “LOL” in post 372.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is because the rest of your response literally did not matter to me. You actually claimed that Connerly is not trying to end Affirmative Action, but to “use” it, when the man has made an entire career attempting to end Affirmative Action. You simply supported, yet again, my suspicion that you intentionally try to muddle the debate by twisting words completely out of their meaning. I laughed at this because, well, such dishonor truly means you have no argument. LOL</p>
<p>
[quote]
I’m young, and I’m still learning on how best to express my thoughts. You’re my elder and are more educated than I; you shouldn’t commit the same mistakes I “do.”
[/quote]
Son. Truly. I understand you have a high opinion of yourself, and that is fine. It is good that our young people think well of themselves. But I have eight children, four of whom have proven themselves so much better at this than you are. I get more than enough practice locking horns with them. I make no mistakes here, at least none that you are able to detect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race is indeed “just a item, one of many, being used in the evaluation.” If it is used, then admissions is race-based. If it not used, then admissions is race-blind. Pretty simple.
[/quote]
Simplistic. It is pretty simplistic. It is no more race-based than it is gender-based, or anything else-based. Race does not define the system by any objective means. It is just your opinion. One may just as easily declare the system “Sexual orientation based”. Ridiculous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For instance, Fabrizio and Drosselmeier disagree on whether society should correct for self-defeatist attitudes of URMs that are probably caused by past discrimination…
[/quote]
This is not what I believe. I believe the American government should help us correct them ourselves, since the American government deliberately created the mess. Since there are others who do not have these attitudes, I want to better ensure that they do not get lost in the bulk of people in groups that have never endured what their group has endured. I also accept that I, not the government, but the black community itself, has a responsibility for working with the rest of America to get rid of this nonsense for good and all. I want to get the whole group working in the direction of forgiving the debt and being free. You know, it can happen, if we all don’t continue to think and act so selfishly. We’ve never done that, despite the “help” the nation has “given”.</p>
<p>"The "200+" advantage is not a racially appropriated "advantage," in that there are plenty of non-URM's who get admitted to Elites with scores of 2180,"</p>
<p>Just to keep numbers honest, the 200+ were based on old 1,600 system.</p>
<p>collegealum,I view your own last post as pompous & unwarranted. The one that you quoted, from me, was not referring to yours. And that's too bad if you cannot see, do not wish to see, choose not to see the illogic of arguments posted here & on other threads -- internal inconsistencies which Drosselmeier has amply explained & need no redundant explanations from me. (Yes, the "if" clauses are off; the assumptions are wrong; the definitions are inaccurate; the citations are uncontextualized & therefore inaccurate.) Enough said. Your arguments are not forensically or analytically superior to anything I've said here.</p>