College Discussion - View Single Post - Fastest-Growing Ethnic Category at Great Colleges: "Race Unknown"

Tyler09 · 01-30-2008, 06:03 PM

A couple side notes.

The difference between wanting well represented populations and a quota is that a quota requires a hard number and a consequence for not reaching that number. In which case adcoms would count up minority students and if they didn't hit that number they would admit more minorities until they did. If this was the case evidence would show in a practically identical number of minorities every year. (which is not the case as it fluctuates)

Second, the intent of state school AA programs, Before schools came to recognize the value of diversity in a student body, was a kind of forced integration/reconstruction. It ultimately forced schools to look in areas they wouldn't look before to find strong minority students, or face consequences.

What we are seeing now is that so many schools have become so competitive and are competing for the minority students, that the pool of highly competitive minorities is running out.

There are two paths that can be taken at this point. People revolt and seek to overturn AA. Or the state education systems are forced to overhaul themselves in order to produce more competitive minority students.

In a sense, the fact that the UC system is one of the only state systems with race blind admissions is in the long run good for the state, as long as all private universities are allowed to keep there programs. Because as we are seeing, the top minority students who are qualified to attend UCLA and UCB are turning those schools down because of the lack of diversity and scholarships they can offer targeted to them to schools like Stanford and the like. Ultimately this will result in the system pressuring the state to improve education in minority concentrated areas, which tend to have the poorest schools.

So while i don't agree with abolishing AA on principle, if it happens very very slowly (like one state every 5 years) and only in public universities, it could have the positive effect that AA intends to accomplish, which is forcing state school systems to improve public education and produce stronger minority students.

I also think that federal funding linked to meeting minority performance requirements would help speed up that change, but the supreme court ruled "quotas" unconstitutional, even though they aren't when it comes to education.

Though, the thing i dislike is when people who oppose AA, i can see what grounds they would oppose it on (equal vs. fair), fail to provide an alternative solution to the problem and also disagree that that alternative should be set up before AA is taken away (socioeconomic AA is not a solution, do some research).

01-30-2008, 06:03 PM	#186
Tyler09 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,708	A couple side notes. The difference between wanting well represented populations and a quota is that a quota requires a hard number and a consequence for not reaching that number. In which case adcoms would count up minority students and if they didn't hit that number they would admit more minorities until they did. If this was the case evidence would show in a practically identical number of minorities every year. (which is not the case as it fluctuates) Second, the intent of state school AA programs, Before schools came to recognize the value of diversity in a student body, was a kind of forced integration/reconstruction. It ultimately forced schools to look in areas they wouldn't look before to find strong minority students, or face consequences. What we are seeing now is that so many schools have become so competitive and are competing for the minority students, that the pool of highly competitive minorities is running out. There are two paths that can be taken at this point. People revolt and seek to overturn AA. Or the state education systems are forced to overhaul themselves in order to produce more competitive minority students. In a sense, the fact that the UC system is one of the only state systems with race blind admissions is in the long run good for the state, as long as all private universities are allowed to keep there programs. Because as we are seeing, the top minority students who are qualified to attend UCLA and UCB are turning those schools down because of the lack of diversity and scholarships they can offer targeted to them to schools like Stanford and the like. Ultimately this will result in the system pressuring the state to improve education in minority concentrated areas, which tend to have the poorest schools. So while i don't agree with abolishing AA on principle, if it happens very very slowly (like one state every 5 years) and only in public universities, it could have the positive effect that AA intends to accomplish, which is forcing state school systems to improve public education and produce stronger minority students. I also think that federal funding linked to meeting minority performance requirements would help speed up that change, but the supreme court ruled "quotas" unconstitutional, even though they aren't when it comes to education. Though, the thing i dislike is when people who oppose AA, i can see what grounds they would oppose it on (equal vs. fair), fail to provide an alternative solution to the problem and also disagree that that alternative should be set up before AA is taken away (socioeconomic AA is not a solution, do some research).