<p>Other posters:
Sorry, for the distraction. As for the OP's original question it depends-and that's really all that anyone can say.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again you don't at all address my question. Why does a 200 year old event make something more relevant nowadays? Yes it had an impact on a number of things, but it does not affect the importance of race in modern times!!
[/quote]
I was hoping my asking you those questions would help you to figure out what I was talking about but I guess that is not the case. If you look at it, almost all of the race relation issues between Whites and African Americans go all the way back to slavery. Also, what do you mean by "make something more relevant today?" It's the lack of racial diversity, which was ultimately caused by slavery, that makes race relevant to our discussion. I guess I was correct in assuming you weren't understanding my arguement</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Spanish inquisition destroyed the lives of countless Jews and Protestants. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre resulted in the killing of 10,000 Hugenots. Atheists were hunted down and cruelly murdered during the Witch hunts. And let's not forget the nativist movement in the 19th century which brought Catholic resentment to record high levels in the United States. These events were all incredibly significant and have shaped the development of the entirety of european and american civilization, yet nobody wants to practice religious based affirmative action.
[/quote]
Well, did that happen in the United States?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I explain the historical events above, and I am sure that I am not misunderstanding your arguments. But just in case I am, why don't you elaborate?
[/quote]
See above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, your point was that height was based on your surroundings, while race wasn't. My point is that both of them are based on your surroundings. A caucasian can be considered a majority or minority, and have different stereotypes and attitudes towards him depending on where he resides. A 6' tall person can be considered tall or short depending on where he resides.</p>
<p>Being caucasian is similar to being 6' tall. Being a majority or minority is similar to being tall or short. There is nothing different between race and height in this regard, so this cannot be a reason for affirmative action to differentiate between the two.
[/quote]
Thanks, you're proving my point again. I am talking about perception. First of all, "whether or not you are in the majority or minority" is not synynomous with race. Second, being in the majority or minority is based on perception, or your surroundings. In the case of the Caucasian, he is Caucasian wherever he goes, but whether or not he is in the majority or minority depends on where he is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No no no no no! All I have proved is socio-economic background impacts your life far more than both race and height.
[/quote]
When did you do that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you have been saying is height does not impact your life nearly as much as RACE. I NEVER contested that socioeconomic situation is an important variable for colleges to consider.
[/quote]
As you conceeded there is a connection between a person's race and socio-economic background. So logically, since the two are interconnected, both a person's socio-economic background and race affect them more than height does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race on the other hand is much more similar to height/attractiveness with regards to its affect on your life.
[/quote]
If they are all so similar then why was slavery and all discrimination towards non-Whites justified with racism and not "lookism?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
You decide to arbitrarily draw the line at race and consider nothing below it. It would be so easy to add height/weight boxes to the common app (as with race, everyone has a height/weight), yet for some reason, you don't consider it important enough.
[/quote]
It's not an arbitrary line to most people who not only know the events of history but the understand the effects of events in history. And yes, for most people, race and height have a rather insignificant effect on their life when compared to the effect that their socio-economic background, family background, race, and gender has on them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alright then, why don't we hold socio-economics constant for the basis of comparison. Who is better off? A poor tall handsome Mexican worker, or a poor short ugly White worker?
[/quote]
What do you mean "better off?" Too vague for me to really answer the question. However, I will say that if the two are doing the same job, the White worker will, more than likely, be paid more than the Mexican worker. In addition, the White worker is less likely to be harassed by policed than the Mexican worker.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A big problem is that racial affirmative action actually holds more weight than its socioeconomic cousin. A rich black has a better chance of making it than a poor white with the same stats.
[/quote]
"A rich black has a better chance of making it than a poor white with the same stats." I'm pretty sure you conveniently made that up. What is the point of acting like this? Do you really think that this is what the Affirmative Action debate is about?</p>
<p>Also, you are wrong. Colleges always assess the applicant's achievements relative to the opportunities provided to them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the study does indeed show that height and income are related, much the same way race and income are. I might as well say that your race/income tables are flawed because they don't include height in their calculations.
[/quote]
The study does not show that, "height and income are related, much the same way race and income are." As you said earlier, the study does not mention race anywhere. It does not even specify if it held race constant throughout the study. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, where do you think a tall person's extra self-esteem and confidence come from? The fact that being tall is almost universally considered to be a positive quality. It's very similar to racial discrimination in this regard, stereotypes are reinforced through self deprecation. Besides, whatever the reason for the lack of confidence, it is real. People who are forced to look up at others will lose confidence in much the same way that a black person who is discouraged by his peers will lose confidence.
[/quote]
I agree with you to an extent, but I notice that you came to the incorrect conclusion because you failed to notice a difference between race and height. The self confidence issues with height are natural whereas the self confidence issues regarding race were man-made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That they do but race means so much more than socio-economics to colleges even though the latter quality has so much more influence on one's life.
[/quote]
Again, you're conveniently making things up. The main reason why socio-economic diversity at top schools is somewhat lacking is because most kids working class to lower middle class kids aren't worried about whether or not they can get in; they're worried about the cost. Socio-economic AA won't change whether or not these kids can afford to pay the tuition; better financial aid policies will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, why not discriminate solely based on socio-economic background in order to level the playing field for poor whites?
[/quote]
What in the world are you talking about here? First of all no one is talking about discriminating against certain groups except you. I am just for colleges considering whatever differences the applicant wants the college to consider. Also, socio-economic Affirmative Action would not help colleges create a diverse student body; in fact, studies show that it would decrease the presence of all minorities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. I know plenty of UMRs who were accepted by top schools despite their low grades/SAT score, yet I haven't heard of a single poor white or asian who was. I know my experience is only a tiny sample, yet I cannot find a single study that demonstrates the affect of socio-economic affirmative action and how much colleges utilize it.
[/quote]
I addressed the financial aspect of this above. In addition, you just claimed that "empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise," yet you went on to give me anecdotal evidence, do you see the absurdity of that?</p>
<p>Regardless of your experiences, there are plenty of underpriviledged kids who get into top schools. Perhaps the reason why you have not heard of any is because you don't live in an underpriviledged area nor do you have much contact with people who are underpriviledged. I bet that if more of these kids didn't worry so much about tuition and financial aid policies were better, more of them would apply and get in.</p>
<p>Also, I find it interesting that you only notice when URMs with lower grades and SAT scores get in yet you seem to be oblivious to the fact that their are people with lower grades and SAT scores of other races who also get in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And similarly, regardless of their socio-economic background, all ugly people are treated differently than their beautiful and handsome peers.
[/quote]
Man-made or natural reasons behind this? Also, no ugly person in history has been denied the right to vote. In addition, there is no study that shows that an ugly person is more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a handsome person than a handsome person killing an ugly person. Why? Because thinking that indicates a certain degree of naivity. ("Naivity" is probably an understatement.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Height and weight clearly influence your life. Yet the common app (along with every other app I know of) does not include them on their application. Every applicant has a height and weight.
[/quote]
But the influence is not to the same degree as socio-economic background, family background, race, and gender. Also, the effects of being ugly, short, handsome, etc. are not as uniform of the effects of socio-economic background, family background, race, and gender. Psychology, history, economics, sociology, etc. are on my side; what is on yours?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You for some reason decide that it is correct to draw the line at race. This is completely arbitrary as the gap between race and height/weight/beauty is much smaller than the gap between socio-economic conditions and race.
[/quote]
Statistics contradict your assertion, and your statement suggests that you believe that certain races are more attractive than others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Logically, one would draw the line there and make applicants explain everything else, including race, especially considering that socio-economic conditions make a tangible difference in your life regardless of where you live, while race can have little to no effect on your life.
[/quote]
I disagree. The biggest factors that influence a persons life are race, socio-economic background, family background, and gender. These are all things that colleges consider right off the bat, because to most people who have a greater degree of insight, it is easy to understand what affect these factors have on person.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Especially if you live in a liberal area like the Bay Area, people hardly ever discriminate seriously on the basis of race. Yet no matter where you reside in american, the amount of money you have is a tangible, quantifiable difference between yourself and another person.
[/quote]
First of all, the effect of the amount of money your family makes is not tangible differnce between two applicants. Making $50,000 a year in New York City is totally different than making $50,000 a year in South Dakota. In regards to college admissions, colleges don't look at income anyways. They look at the opportunities you had provided.</p>
<p>In addition, where you are located is part of your family background, which is something that colleges already take into consideration. Thus by considering the four factors that I have been talking about-race, socio-economic background, family background, and gender-colleges are able to understand the context of your application.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, for the majority of people, race doesn't affect their lives much either. Why not treat race the same then, and just have people talk about it in their essays?
[/quote]
I really hope that you think about this sentence for the rest of your life and whether or not you truly believe it. I think you are getting caught up in "directly influences" and "indirectly influences." Whether or not it is direct or indirect has nothing to do with whether or not it effects them.</p>
<p>Anyways, I'm sure you're probably thinking, "Why not treat race the same then, and just have people talk about it in their essays?" Well because as you just proved, when given the four factors I just talked about, colleges can make a reasonable assessment as to how those factors influenced the applicant's life. This is more about practicality right here. College admissions officers aren't going to want to read about how those factors affected the applicant's life because in most cases it's a "no duh" how those factors affected the applicant.</p>