Getting By

This is just a thought that was run by me today.
I am fully white, both parents are white, and all of my grandparents are white. I'm a natural born U.S. resident. However, I am (and have been my entire life) a fully legal New Zealand citizen. Does this mean that on college apps I can apply Pacific Islander? Technically speaking, my ancestry is from New Zealand, and despite being all white, are technically from the Pacific Islands.

Anyway, as silly as the idea is, it could give me a significant boost, so just wondering if it is at all possible.

seattle_mom

The question is about race/ethnicity, so no, you cannot honestly apply as a Pacific Islander.

nero103

don't get carried away. New Zealand is technically a Pacific Island and New Zealand has a Maori population but let's face it. You are white probably of British ancestry.

Getting By

Haha I didn't think so, good thing I wasn't riding on that.

tokenadult

My view on the factual issue is that most colleges make quite unclear what their actual policy is, not specifying how much they prefer, in what way, one kind of applicant over another. But I will note for the record that when the University of Michigan recently changed its admission system not to take into account the "race" of applicants, because of a voter initiative in that state, the university officials in charge of admission the year the change occurred said in news media interviews that they "applied two sets of standards" to applicants admitted before and after the change. That may or may not be the situation at any other university today, and that may or may not have been the situation at other universities in the past.

I expect epiphany will speak for herself on what her view is of the answer to your question.

tokenadult

(Your question was merged into the FAQ and discussion thread in the interest of accuracy.) You already know the answer to your question: you are white. The federal definition of "Pacific Islander"

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000

excludes white New Zealanders but surely includes Maoris.

europegrad

It all started as classificating people in blacks, indians/natives and whites. Then, the color-denominated label was dropped just for the blacks, who became African-American, while whites continued to be... whites (instead of Caucaso-European).

Then, the latino mess came around, because it is not an ethnic classification but a origin one. Therefore, Spaniards and Portugueses are not Latinos for AA purposes, but people of Spanish and Portuguese descente born in South and Central America are. Of course, one could be black, yellow or white and Latino, so they introduced a higher layer of classification (see in the Census tables: first they segretate - statistically - Latinos from Non-Latinos, then among the non-latinos you could be black, white, Native American).

Now it came this confusion about Pacific Islander.

It seems to be a prejudice against the whites who build the US at least as much as any other "group": if your ancestry-related group came to US and became as a whole more rich more quickly (Germans, Italians, Polish and, of course, British), you're white and not entitled any preference on AA basis. If it was subject of discrimination as much as, say, Italian-Americans, but if such group did not prosper, then you have a category for your own.

Why people from Spanish descent born in Spain are whites, and people from Spanish descent born from other immigrants to Central/South America are Latinos? Why there is no such specific category for people from European descent from Southern Europe, whose nationals were discriminated (Italians, Croatians, Hungarians) in US, are labeled as whites and not, say, Southern-European Americans?

It just pathetic how different criteria are used to "classify" and sort people around in US. Is it one's skin color? Is it place of birth? Is it economic status? Collective guilty for slavery or whatsoever?

This country has done many, many things right and is the best example of success earned through hard work and dedication. However, this ethnic classifications are becoming more and more a joke. They should be abolished altogether, everyone would either American or alien (legal of ilegal depending on the case, of course), end of discussion.

Canuckguy

Good job of moderating.

From my perspective, there should not even be a question. The answer is that obvious.

Just show you how far the ruling class will go to maintain privilege for their descendants.

tokenadult

You are correct as a historical matter that the Hispanic or Latino ethnic category, overlaid over the federal categories of "races," came later historically than United States laws that made distinctions by "race." (I can remember when the Hispanic category didn't exist--not in law and not in many people's minds.) But what is interestingly odd about the category is that people from Spain are included, as well as people from Spanish imperial territories, while people from Portugal are excluded, even people from Portuguese imperial territories such as Brazil.

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000

fabrizio

Re #26

"Many others had far better qualifications,..." != "underqualification." If you believe otherwise, then you must also believe the following:

1. Yale is significantly inferior to Princeton and is not a peer institute because Yale accepted Mssr. Li in 2006.

2. Filing a civil rights complaint against Princeton University is a bona fide qualification in the eyes of Harvard that can get you a transfer admission.

The first is a farcical consequence, but the second holds much more serious implications, as I alluded to earlier.

monstor344

When you set different standards for different racial groups in order to achieve that goal, you are showing preference towards certain groups.

monstor344

The fact that Jian Li was waitlisted indicates that he was qualified for serious consideration.

epiphany

You're not "setting different standards." That's the entire point, and the entire myth of this whole urban legend.

The fact that a particular ethnic/nat'l group had an overall higher composite score has nothing to do with anything UNLESS the college has stated that higher scores = greater preparedness, higher qualification, etc. There is no indication that any such operative principle applies.

The colleges themselves state that a variety of qualifiers are counted for, all of which figure into the overall qualification of any particular candidate. Janet Rapeleye just told you (again) that based on all overall measures, he did not qualify. But you're not interested in listening to her, even though she is/was the Head of Admissions. A waitlisted student qualifies on various measures but it is determined that there is no compelling reason to admit him or her. People who had his scores were admitted to Princeton. Some of those were Asian; some were not Asian. There were additionally people admitted to P that year who had slightly lower scores but who rocked in the e.c. category that he did not. The U has never represented that scores are an indication of greater admissibility to P than any other measure, or than all other measures combined. That's your wish. It's the wish of others on this board: to make the American college system into a mirror image of some Asian systems.

In your dreams.

fabrizio

Re #43

You're reading your own biases into Rapeleye's comments. She did not say that "...based on all overall measures, [Jian Li] did not qualify." She said "Many others had far better qualifications...[h]is outside activities were not all that outstanding." That in no way suggests lack of qualification for admittance into Princeton University. It simply states, in extremely defensive language, that Li was not the most outstanding candidate for admission in that year.

In all likelihood, he probably wasn't the best applicant. Now, I know you don't like Jian Li because he stood up to one of your beloved policies, but I really think you shouldn't pursue this particular argument any further, because it's not one you can win. You're effectively suggesting that a person who is qualified to attend Yale and Harvard isn't qualified to attend Princeton. Try convincing anyone here at CC that Yale and Princeton aren't comparable.

And, to repeat for perhaps the hundredth time, opponents of racial preferences by and large are not advocating for a Chinese / British / French system of "one test determines your life." Li himself has gone on record as stating that he does not support the Chinese gaokao system; he simply opposes any and all consideration of race as a factor in admissions. It's amazing how the defenders of the status quo will always claim that race doesn't play a big deal, but if you remove it, then everything but test scores and GPA disappears, as well. Huh, race must play a very big role if removing it leads to the removal of just about everything else!

The number of racial preference defenders I've met who have not fallen into this trap barely fills one hand. It's quite sad because these people are often highly educated; yet for whatever reason, they cannot grasp a simple concept: opposing racial preferences does not mean automatic support for numbers-only admissions. It never has, and despite the earnest efforts of status quo defenders to make it seem otherwise, it never will.

StitchInTime

There is only one way to guarantee that an application will not be evaluated with regard to any 'race' qualifier: As noted in #1, opt-out of providing any 'Race/Ethnicity' data.