wouldn't it be interesting if colleges didn't look at race?

Applying to College
81

<p>
[quote]
By the way, it's amusing to me when people credit the "extreme left" with affirmative action. I'm old enough to remember that affirmative action, like the Environmental Protection Agency, were products of the Nixon administration.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do not credit the extreme left with creating affirmative action. If you read my statement that way, then either I did not express myself clearly enough, or you accidentally took it out of context.</p>

<p>It is the extreme left today who vigorously argue that affirmative action is neither preferential treatment nor a system of racial preference. Yet, they ardently oppose measures which seek to abolish preferential treatment and claim that these measures will destroy affirmative action.</p>

<p>It is the extreme left today who believe that certain groups can be “over-represented” while other groups can be “under-represented” because their proportions in our universities do not match their nation-wide proportions. All the while, they maintain that they are against quotas.</p>

<p>It is the extreme left today who think that binary racial classifications, such as the ones used in Seattle and Louisville, constitute an acceptable application of Grutter and promote “diversity.”</p>

<p>It is the extreme left today who ostracize people who dare to believe that diversity is neither group membership nor identity politics but rather a belief in the uniqueness of the individual.</p>

82

<p>Awesome response Greybeard. You are so right, people are only upset because their chances of admission is decreased. Sour grapes!!!!</p>

<p>Everyone will use whatever they have to increase their chances, who wouldn't???</p>

83

<p>Again, "diversity" is a non-issue and takes the focus away from the key disagreement surrounding all affirmative action discussions - whether or not certain groups are entitled to preferential treatment based on their group affiliation.</p>

<p>Now that state-supported segregation is nonexistent, it is not possible for diversity to ever decrease. A university that admits students without regard to their race, gender, and so forth does not lose any diversity.</p>

<p>There's little, if any, disagreement that diversity is good. The only disagreement would be in how diversity is defined. I don't see it as an excuse for identity politics and group-by-group segregation. If diversity to you means a native-born black CS professor is diverse but an Eritrean-born CS professor isn't, then I am opposed to your conception of diversity.</p>

84

<p>fabrizio, you do know that a single person isn't "diverse" right. A GROUP is what is diverse. A group made up of individuals of a wide range of backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds.</p>

<p>"Now that state-supported segregation is nonexistent, it is not possible for diversity to ever decrease. A university that admits students without regard to their race, gender, and so forth does not lose any diversity."
-please justify this statement. If, as you believe, having a wide range of ethnicities and a strong representation of the sexes does not contribute to diversity in any way shape or form, then how would segregation cause the loss of diversity?</p>

<p>"Again, "diversity" is a non-issue and takes the focus away from the key disagreement surrounding all affirmative action discussions - whether or not certain groups are entitled to preferential treatment based on their group affiliation"</p>

<p>-i disagree, i don't believe that is the key disagreement. That is simply a superficial statement that people who are not familiar with AA make to support their unfounded opposition. People who are knowledgeable know that its not about "entitlement", seeing as if African Americans and hispanics were outperforming everyone then AA "for them" (which is really a misnomer as it is for the student body) would not exist. </p>

<p>The core argument is about diversity and whether or not having a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds and representation of both genders is valuable and desirable.</p>

85

<p>"The core argument is about diversity and whether or not having a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds and representation of both genders is valuable and desirable."</p>

<p>No, this is not what any sort of logical debate about AA should be centered around. </p>

<p>Diversity, like everything else in life, comes with a cost. College admissions officers do not wave magic wands to make diversity happen- to make it happen, they must use skin color to help decide who gets in- and that is called discrimination.
The central question is whether or not you think diversity is so valuable that it is worth discriminating against applicants based on skin color in order to achieve it.</p>

<p>AA dispels stereotypes? The very existence of AA perpetuates the stereotype that URMs cannot make it on their own.</p>

86

<p>Tyler,</p>

<p>I disagree. I approach diversity from the individual point of view, not the collectivist one. You’re sympathetic to socialism, thus it doesn’t surprise me that to you, diversity is heavily grounded in groups. I believe that each individual has unique interests, dreams, goals, and so forth. Each individual is different, hence each individual is diverse. A group is indeed made of individuals, but the diversity ultimately comes from the individual, not the group.</p>

<p>Segregation artificially restricts the applicant pool. Let’s call the total number of college-bound seniors in an area X. Segregation mandates that only Y% of X is able to be considered for admission to all colleges. The applicant pool is not as large as it can be. What’s more, it is very possible that many of the (100-Y)% of students who weren’t allowed to apply could have bested their Y% peers in the admissions process. Segregation thus causes the loss of diversity.</p>

<p>Perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly. Having a wide range of ethnicities does contribute to diversity. I simply believe that race-blind admissions does not reduce the range of ethnicities on campuses.</p>

<p>The core argument is not about whether diversity is valuable. It is. You’d be hard pressed to find a person who thinks that diversity isn’t valuable, although you can easily find people who don’t view diversity in terms of identity politics. Whether or not diversity is “desirable” is simply your way of phrasing what I state as “are certain groups are entitled to preferential treatment based on their group affiliation?”</p>

87

<p>Tyler09:</p>

<p>The only thing I have gained from being in such a racially diverse community IS the fact that stereotypes are wrong.</p>

<p>Isn't affirmative action stereotyping though? It's saying that because your skin color is different from the majority's, you will add more diversity to the group than another person from that majority. Isn't that in itself stereotyping? If you are exactly the same as another person in all elements save skin color, you add NO more diversity than that person would, and should be judged equally to them with respect to diversity.</p>

<p>Race is no indicator of background. An asian kid and a black kid who grew up in the same neighborhood would have a lot more in common than that same asian kid and an asian immigrant, or the black kid and a black immigrant. If you're so concerned with getting people from different communities, why not base diversity on the high school they went to? That seems to be a much better indicator of background than race.</p>

<p>Now I know that people are critical of my personal anecdotes, and even though they might not be representative of the world at large, the fact that there are cases like mine (more than you think) kind of demonstrates that affirmative action is flawed because it fails to account for so many people (in particular poor whites and poor asians, who suffer the most from it).</p>

<p>Now for example, the two people I know who are closest in personality and interests to me are black and white. Any of us would add the same degree of diversity to say, a primarily asian elite school. But when it comes to the decision, they're going to pick the black one. Because he's drastically different from us? Well besides his skin color, not really. Am I missing something here?</p>

<p>See Tyler, I don't believe race or gender makes you any different from another person. It's like paying attention to hair colors or finger length to create a diverse campus.</p>

88

<p>"See Tyler, I don't believe race or gender makes you any different from another person. It's like paying attention to hair colors or finger length to create a diverse campus."</p>

<p>And thats a crucial flaw in thinking. In America today, your race and your gender have a great impact on the sculpting of your identity, much of which begins to show up when you reach college and live on your own outside of the bubble you grew up in. This impact is evident in the fact that students tend to self-segregate when they reach college because those people have shared that similar experience, regardless of what part of the country they came from. </p>

<p>-and in college admissions, you have to look at it from their perspective if you want to understand JP, its not about the diversity of the individual, but the diversity of the class as a whole. Its not a matter of me taking a socialist viewpoint, but the way that colleges or any large body shapes itself. So they are not saying that any individual of any skin color "has more diversity", because in the realm of college admissions the measurement of "how much diversity you have" does not exist.</p>

<p>I want to take this time to emphasize that colleges DO take into account geographic and socioeconomic diversity as well. But the overarching reason why the effect on black and hispanic students is so large is because those groups on the whole do not test as well as their peers in every economic bracket (hence why solely socioeconomic AA would not produce the same results)</p>

<p>"An asian kid and a black kid who grew up in the same neighborhood would have a lot more in common than that same asian kid and an asian immigrant, or the black kid and a black immigrant."</p>

<p>"AA dispels stereotypes? The very existence of AA perpetuates the stereotype that URMs cannot make it on their own."</p>

<p>-another misconception based in misunderstanding. AA does not perpetuate this stereotype, all it says is that having a racially diverse student body is desirable and they should take action to pursue it. People who are already racist perpetuate that stereotype. People who would say that urms can't make it on their own when there is AA would very well say the exact same thing if it didn't exist and they were vastly underrepresented in the upper crust of society. You can't judge the merit of a program based on the perceptions of people who are already racists and would make such ignorant assumptions in the first place</p>

89

<p>"Perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly. Having a wide range of ethnicities does contribute to diversity. I simply believe that race-blind admissions does not reduce the range of ethnicities on campuses."</p>

<p>^please go on </p>

<p>And bob9975, i would like to know: So would you consider economic status an acceptable way to discriminate? What about athletics?
-I'm not saying if its right or wrong, i just don't believe you can oppose one and not the other</p>

90

<p>Saying that blacks and latinos on average don't test well is not an excuse for allowing them in in spite of low scores. Plenty of people don't test well, many of them white or asian. But the whites and asians who don't test well don't get any advantages, because "those groups on the whole" have higher test scores.</p>

<p>If we're giving some races a break on test scores, why not give the rest a break? If these standardized tests are such bad measures of intelligence, why not do away with them and find something else (I would wholeheartedly support something like this; I stress so much over standardized tests)? Simply giving one race the benefit of the doubt because a lot of them don't test well is completely unfair to the whites and asians who are bad test takers but are genuinely intelligent.</p>

<p>While colleges may not say an individual of any skin color "has more diversity", they are indeed saying "You will make our student body more 'diverse' because your skin is black." Same conclusion; they're stereotyping. I thought we were trying to get rid of stereotypes?</p>

<p>Okay, yes, race and gender DO have an impact on your identity. ...so do a billion other factors that colleges don't consider in their admissions. How about weight? Height? 90% of CEOs are of above average height, and tall people have been shown to make more money in numerous studies. Height influences the kind of partner you can get and how much others look up to you. I'd say it's an important aspect of your identity, but I don't see colleges giving any bonuses to applicants of shorter stature.</p>

<p>Let's just take looks in general, actually. Being ugly in america is one of the most difficult things to struggle through. You're shunned by peers, laughed at by your classmates, have a very difficult time finding a lover, and are subject to on average 15% lower pay than your attractive counterparts of equal ability. I'd say it has far more of an impact on your identity than skin color alone, if only because of the way it socially hampers you.</p>

<p>Do colleges consider anything related to your physical appearance other than skin color? I didn't think so.</p>

<p>Onto other benefits. Athletics is something you actually work for. Spending all those hours training and participating in a sport does something to show your dedication.</p>

<p>Economic status is questioned by some, though I support it as a means of leveling the playing field due to tangible disparities in one's opportunities. Having less money in fact impedes your ability to acquire the same resources as a wealthy person. I don't think a lot of weight should be put on it, but enough so poor kids have a chance. </p>

<p>See, socioeconomic affirmative action differs from race based affirmative action in that the former discriminates on tangible differences that can be applied to all races. It is a race blind policy that accounts for the differences between those who have opportunity and those who don't. People with money can use it to hire tutors, buy new books, and allow the kid the avoid taking a job and instead spend his time on schoolwork. The student demonstrates the ability to shine even in difficult circumstances (and no, "being black" does not count as a difficult circumstance)</p>

<p>If a parent is less educated, the student is unfamiliar with the system and has less opportunity to seek guidance. They show independence and initiative being the first in their family to go to college. They demonstrate that they have a strong drive and are able to figure out the system without help.</p>

<p>Whereas with race based affirmative action...well...it just doesn't hold. How is a black kid in poverty any more disadvantaged than a white one? How is the black daughter of a rich educated family disadvantaged at all? People often associate UMRs with low income and low education because of the statistics (i've heard lots of arguments where the person tells a sob story of black kids having to compensate for circumstances such as low income and being under the care of a single mother) but in fact, the majority of those in poverty are white.</p>

<p>If there's one thing UMRs suffer from that hurts their chances of going to college, it's a lack of confidence in themselves. See the thing is, confidence is affected by a whole spectrum of things, not simply race. As mentioned above, height, weight, and physical appearance all have a substantial effect on confidence, as do skill at miscellaneous activities, having supporting parents, and being popular in school. There are so many factors here that race is highly irrelevant to self confidence. And even if it had a more substantial impact, you could not justify its use without using all of the other factors, and I doubt we'll be putting the number of friends we have down on our applications any time soon.</p>

91

<p>"and no, "being black" does not count as a difficult circumstance"</p>

<p>-Try it. :rolleyes:</p>

92

<p>JP_Omnipotence, what you said about socioeconomic factors presents a good point, but the rest of your thread diminishes from that and provides a flawed argument. For you to bring height and other factors into this is downright comical, and your last paragraph about self-confidence is absolutely outrageous. Who says that a lack of self-confidence accounts for low academic performance? And what exactly are you saying about self-confidence? Because first you deduce that urms have a lack of self confidence(and i don't know how you can say all minorities have a lack of self-confidence) then you refute your own statement. I kind of understand your argument that race is only a small part of the picture, but the fact is, race is a huge part of it all. I wish it wasn't, I really do. It said that in the year of 2007 these things still surface. But the fact remains that racial issues affect a large part of our society, and people that can not see the underlying factors should not bash AA because it does not benefit them. AA is a means of balancing out the playing field that was largely ruined due to the racial injustices of the past, and I believe it serving its purpose well. </p>

<p>However all in all
very good arguments both ways, interesting thread...
But in the end,</p>

<p>It is what it is.</p>

93

<p>Okay, first things first: i'll admit I probably do have a bias in this issue, considering college applications are consuming me right now and I am so worried about getting into my dream school that anything that lowers my chances is a BAD thing. However, even before all of this came up, I was opposed to affirmative action so it isn't like I am acting like this just because i'm freaked about about stanford.</p>

<p>I'm bringing height and other factors into my argument to demonstrate how ridiculous the nation of granting benefits based on race alone is.</p>

<p>Seriously, explain to me how being black is worse than being ugly, and tell me why one deserves reparations but not the other.</p>

<p>As for the self confidence part, I'm not saying all UMRs have a lack of self confidence. It's a commonly brought up argument by proponents of AA that minorities have societal pressures placed on them so they lose confidence and therefore have less of a chance to succeed. I'm trying to refute this common argument. Sorry if that was unclear.</p>

<p>Everyone here is saying that race is "a huge part of it all" or "a difficult circumstance". Can anyone please show me how a black with equal socioeconomic status to a white has any significant (and i mean significant) disadvantage that deserves compensation by AA?</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
Everyone here is saying that race is "a huge part of it all" or "a difficult circumstance". Can anyone please show me how a black with equal socioeconomic status to a white has any significant (and i mean significant) disadvantage that deserves compensation by AA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here's one way you can look at it. Take any demographic quality of life statistic you can think of and see where Africam Americans rank. Health, income, housing, education, employment, etc. You will see that across the board even when other socio factors are considered that Af Am are still lagging behind. Now I am acutely aware of the self destructive attitutes and behaviors that keep Af Am from closing the gap in some socio economic areas. However, being Black and the mindsets associated with that permeates the psyche of this country and this culture. There is simply no denying that. Sometimes it subtle, other times less so.
I recall reading a study of 20 somthing to 30 something year old college grad females married to white males. Asians topped the list at as I recall at a huge rate something like 50%+, then latina at around 30% or so and the Black woman, like 2%. All these women were college grads. Where your heart is is where your treasure is. Obviously among these particular minority groups all things considered, the Black woman is less coveted and significantly less so than other women of color. Blacks make up more than 50% of the participants in the top collegiate football programs. There are 120 teams, 6 black head coaches. Ditto more or less for Division II. 2004 before the FIRST black into the SEC. You think race doesn't factor into that? There are many other anecdotal evidences of how simply being black makes a difference.
I've shared with my children a basic experiment as a litmus test to generally assess their level of acceptance among their white peers.
I call it the three P's. Pay, Power and the other P is lets just say like "OPP."
These three P's represent the basic things that Western culture covet and value deeply. If an african american can transition into these areas as well as their contemporaries then you can assume with some degree of certainty that your race hasn't been an impedence. Otherwise it's something that you'll have to overcome if you want to reach your goals. So I've said all of this to illustrate that yes, race does matter. It shouldn't so much, but it does. It is a rare thing for a people in a position of power to benevolently share things that are so coveted with those that they have been conditioned to think less of. The Civil War, Brown vs Bd of Education, the Civil Rights struggle,etc, etc, vividly illustrate this.
I'm reminded of it almost every day, and I'm exceedingly blessed in every aspect of my life in spite of that reminder.</p>

95

<p>^URM by the way</p>

<p>"Everyone here is saying that race is "a huge part of it all" or "a difficult circumstance". Can anyone please show me how a black with equal socioeconomic status to a white has any significant (and i mean significant) disadvantage"</p>

<p>The fact that poor black and hispanics perform lower than poor whites and asians. I'm pretty sure that that shows that the issue runs deeper than socioeconomics.</p>

<p>"the majority of those in poverty are white."</p>

<p>-Well those statistics could argue either way. I could very well say that because 33.2% of all black children under 18 live below the poverty line, but only 10% of BOTH white & Asian children are below the poverty line, black teenagers are more likely to be poor. And this is obviously a much better representation -national poverty center, 2004</p>

96

<p>
[quote]

Well those statistics could argue either way. I could very well say that because 33.2% of all black children under 18 live below the poverty line, but only 10% of BOTH white & Asian children are below the poverty line, black teenagers are more likely to be poor. And this is obviously a much better representation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many opponents of racial preferences are supportive of socioeconomic affirmative action.</p>

<p>Socioeconomic affirmative action makes it possible to have the type of "diversity" so coveted by the collectivists without resorting to racial preferences. What's more, this type of affirmative action actually extends opportunity to people who need it (i.e. people from low-income backgrounds.)</p>

<p>40% of the students at UCLA and Berkeley receive Pell Grants. That is wonderful. We are seeing Americans getting a chance to live the Dream. To me, that's more important than "balancing" or reaching "diversity."</p>

97

<p>
[quote]
40% of the students at UCLA and Berkeley receive Pell Grants. That is wonderful. We are seeing Americans getting a chance to live the Dream. To me, that's more important than "balancing" or reaching "diversity."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fab, good to see u back in our most popular forum!</p>

<p>It's good for those that support socioeconomic inclusion, but as someone has already alluded to, in raw numbers, there are significantly more whites that are socioeconmically disadvantaged than AA. UCLA had a little over 200 AA out of what, more than 6,000 matriculants. That was with alumni creating a program to target and recruit more AA and support them financially as well. I support socioeconomic diversity, but it doesn't fully address the issue of raising URM's to the point that very term becomes obsolete. A white child from the lowest income quintile has avg test scores higher than those AA in the highest income quintiles. The typical AA with a hs education, has the equivalence in educational quality of a white 8th grader. Low expectations, lower qualified teachers, tracking into non college prep courses and other factors tied to racial stereotypes lead to this educational gap. As I have previously stated Blacks aren't without culpability. Of course with socio economic diversity it appeases the white majority, successful minority groups and their sense of a compromised meritocracy. Once again with this formula, blacks are left wanting. AA in and of itself cannot address nor resolve all these disparities. AA along with other well developed and successful strategies can however increase the recruitment and retention of minorities in areas where they are severely underepresented.</p>

<p>Sometimes when I read the dissenting viewpoints it has me thinking of the slogan, "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand." </p>

<p>Wouldn't implies a willfulness not to understand. Is that the case here?</p>

98

<p>Well said Madville. So much so that it appears, temporarily at least, to have shut this thread down. The ensuing silence strikes me as being a very interesting response to the question posed.</p>