tokenadult

I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on College Confidential. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement.

One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest.

It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up.

One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking.

I still support affirmative action in college admission, by which I mean I continue to support colleges reaching out to young people unlike me who didn't have college-educated parents, for example. (I'm a third-generation college graduate, so of course I can guide my children's education more readily than can a parent who never attended college.) I DEFINITELY support equality of rights under the law and full enjoyment of civil rights by all people in the United States. I learned that from my parents even before I learned it from my classmates and my teachers. But I'm ASTONISHED that forty years after the visitor to my class reminded me and my classmates that we have the choice of treating our fellow citizens as individuals that there are still people in America who want to give the Klan and the segregationists the win by making sure we are classified by "race" for all time. My college alma mater has been admitting students of all "races" since before my late grandfather was born--as has Harvard. Diversity is a wonderful aspect of American life, and I think our diversity can best be appreciated by not lumping our neighbors into "race" groups that are approximate at best, and downright misleading and pernicious at times. I'm confident that every which kind of people will be admitted to all of the finest colleges of the land if those colleges holistically consider lots of admission factors without considering "race" at all, as I am convinced by personal acquaintance with lots of smart young people that there are smart young people and young people with great leadership skills and young people with any characteristic a college might desire in all the ethnic groups in the United States.

__________________
Tips on the College Application Process

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...n-process.html

"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 6

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...ssion-6-a.html

College Confidential Terms of Service

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...q_new_faq_item

epiphany

Who said that? Not I. Why do some of you insist on misquoting, literally, other posters? Neither I nor schools have ever claimed that race is a "qualification." Not here, not elsewhere.

I said a factor of ADMISSION. Admission goes beyond qualification, which is a concept a few of you have trouble grasping. If you don't know this, you know very little about private schooling in the USA. All kinds of private schools yes, K-12 schools, particularly in urban areas, have specific targets, if sufficient numbers of qualified individuals apply. If sufficiently qualified people do not apply, they do not meet those targets. They hope, hope -- in some cases I'm thinking of -- that as many as one-third of their highly qualified pool will be URM's. This actually doesn't happen consistently. Some years it does.

If you're not aware of it, then you simply haven't been exposed to it or do not live in an area as racially, ethnically, nationally as diversified as I do. And that's the entire point of such diversity in college admissions as well. They do want the diverse spectrum of the country -- IF they can get it. Not every category applies to the top colleges, so inevitably they do not get as broad a representation of the highly qualified as they wish.

chaosakita

Wow, way to get into semantics.

Maybe you didn't exactly mean "qualification", but I still don't know any high or elementary schools that use race in their admission.

So I got one word wrong. Actually, I do realize that colleges don't just use qualification as their guideline for admission. I was asking for some examples of these schools with names.

I'm sorry that I don't know so much about private schools as you do.

If they don't meet their target, they don't meet their target? Shocking.

I'm also curious to when exactly that happens. Depends on what people mean by "high qualified" though.

But anyways, these schools, like colleges using AA, probably make up a small percentage of the total number of private schools out there.

I'm sorry that I don't too.

Of course they could get it if they really wanted to. Just do some more recruiting and then admit a larger percentage of those recruited students. It would negatively affect lots of areas, but then you have to make some sacrifices.

epiphany

Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is everything when applied to vocabulary, not to mention real-life applications.

Reality is not limited by the limitations of your knowledge. (Shocking, I know.)

A key word.

Do you not know how to use search engines? You cannot google private schools in __ region, read their mission statement, read their admissions policies and profiles? In addition, where they do not pronounce such information on their websites, you can attend their admissions sessions: that's usually where the administrators are most specific about such goals, if they have goals. (Or they answer direct questions in that regard.) I distinctly remember an incident many years ago where my own daughter was applying to a private K-12 school. The admissions director was holding an open house. Admissions all over were extremely tight and overflowing: about 5 times the number of excellent candidates to available spots. (Not unlike selective college admissions.) The director took one look at my "white" (beige, I guess ) skin, and said, "If your daughter looks like you, you can count on her not being seriously considered, since there are so few spots, and at this point, we would only open our already full list to someone of a different color."

Well, yes, quite honestly, I was offended, as I'm sure you would be in a similar scenario. But the part that offended me was not "the consideration of background/color." The part I found offensive was that they were not even willing to investigate the qualifications to begin with! That is not at all like diversity in college admissions. They in fact do first look at qualification. It's just that people on this board differ from college admissions committees in what to consider, proportionally and in sum, as qualifications. I do think it's a philosophical difference.

Nothing to be sorry about. The cure for that is information.

No not shocking. That's entirely the point Diversity is only a goal. Lots and lots of private K-12 schools and private colleges are very wide of the mark.

I agree. But the people that count are those doing the deciding. And I will tell you that I was so offended by the manner and policy of the admissions director in the above example, that my attitude was not, "I'll sue her in some federal court." My attitude was, "You know, her policy stinks, not to mention the manner in which she is delivering it. This tells me a lot about her school; it's probably good that my daughter, ONLY BECAUSE OF HER COLOR, will "never be considered" (this year). It's best that I go elsewhere, where qualifications come first, diversity comes second."

I haven't collected national data. I will tell you that in my major urban region, representing a huge population, the extreme majority of private schools operate this way.

fabrizio

Re #49

I'd like to discuss one of the articles mentioned in tokenadult's link - "Why a Diverse Student Body is so Important." I'm guessing that Mssr. Theodore L. Spencer is the one who thought it was a "strong" piece worthy of being read prior to attending the Institute. Unsurprisingly, I thought the essay was very poorly argued.

The third paragraph reeks of racialism. It suggests that only through "race-conscious" admissions can a diverse educational environment be obtained. That is a very strong insinuation, and yet no evidence is provided to defend it. It is merely postulated, therefore it will only convince those who already believe in it.

Mssr. Rudenstine's historical context is too sugar-coated. He doesn't mention President Lowell's virulent anti-Semitism, perhaps because he knows that doing so would reveal how hollow his argument is for "diversity." Apparently, a few Jews make the place diverse, but too many and diversity disappears. Yeah, right.

Rudenstine argues that admissions officers "must reaffirm the critical role that students with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences play in educating one another." I have always argued that race-conscious admissions is not necessary to achieve this; it can be and is achieved through race-blind admissions. Again, he doesn't provide evidence that only through race-conscious admissions can you get students with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences. Thus, again, his argument only convinces those who were already convinced.

Hypocritically, Rudenstine writes that admissions officers "assess individuals as individuals." But, if they truly did so, they wouldn't be so interested in learning the individuals' group affiliations. It wouldn't be relevant if they really assessed individuals as individuals.

Rudenstine asserts that the current situation is unlikely to change "...without conscious and sustained effort." In effect, he's arguing that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to keep discriminating on the basis of race until it's no longer necessary. One needs only re-read that to understand how nonsensical it is. I repeat the words of Chief Justice Roberts once more, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" (emphasis mine).

Surprisingly, Rudenstine is fairly forthright in admitting his use of racial preferences: "...we consciously consider the 'mix' of the class as a whole..." However, he quickly returns to the standard admissions officer's trait of obfuscation when he reiterates that there are no efforts to "achieve specific numerical targets through quotas." Uh huh, so you consciously consider the racial percentages of the class as a whole, but you're totally not using quotas. Riiight.

No status quo defender's argument could be complete without resorting that straw men of all straw men, and sadly, Rudenstine is no exception. He asserts that merit "cannot be measured purely in terms of numbers," as if the opponents actually wanted that! Jeez.

Rudenstine employs another straw man in his conclusion when he states that he doesn't believe problems can be solved "simply by stating that we live, or ought to live, in a society where [race has] ceased to be significant." But whoever said that words alone solve the problem? Ward Connerly's civil rights initiatives are not mere words; they are grass-roots campaigns (ie. action) to rid America of a truly un-American concept: racial preferences.

Hope Full

Fabrizio summarized my frustrations. We all know what the adcoms at top schools are doing. We don't need books, studies, or crafted arguments by those who support AA. We see what's happening each April when acceptances are received. Each year I've been in high school, our campus is shocked for two reasons. First, we're shocked to learn that the smartest few students in our high school were rejected at top schools. Second, we're shocked to learn that a few students who were academically marginal were accepted at top schools.

I live in Southern California and Stanford is often the source of most frustration. For the last several years, they've rejected our school's top students, all of whom were Asian. Last April, they accepted a girl from our school who was very middle of the road academically, had a sub-2000 SAT and was involved in no discernible EC's. But she was half Native American. The year before that, an partially Polynesian girl with even lower credentials was accepted by Stanford. Meanwhile, Stanford hasn't accepted an Asian from our school since 2003. One was waitlisted (but ultimately rejected) in 2007, but that's the last nibble we received.

I will only speak for myself, but I think AA actually serves to divide people.

I would prefer a lottery system. Maybe top schools could establish minimum academic creditentials, like the UC system's ELC calculation, and then qualfied applicants could then be given a lottery's chance of gaining admission. Being rejected would be easier for me if I could chalk it up to random luck.

StripedCandycane

Although I am not an expert on the subject of college diversity, here is the problem that the race in college admissions has given me:

The whole race section on the application really bugs me. I am someone who could genuinely be considered "Hispanic": my mother is from South America, I speak fluent Spanish (my grandmother speaks nothing else), and there are cultural aspects that I can really relate to. I sometimes feel South American. On the other hand, my father is almost as "White" as you can get, with just a hint of American Indian thrown in.

So I have to think about what the application office thinks. And if I tick off that little Hispanic box, it suddenly feels fake: the Hispanic people that colleges are looking for, to my mind, are people who struggled with racial prejudice, people who had single mothers who had to work three jobs to raise their kids. And I'm fairly well off. I don't come from a family of millionaires, but I'm probably upper middle-class. Visually, I'm pretty white. So suddenly I feel that if I say I'm Hispanic, I might be taking the place of someone that needs desperately to get in. And I want to get in on my own merit, not partially because my relatives just happen to come from South America.

My solution? I'm not putting in my race. If my essay demands it, I'll tell the story of my family, but I refuse to condense my background into a little check.

tokenadult

Today's featured article on English Wikipedia:

Rock Springs massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This caught my eye because I have been to that town in Wyoming.

Hope Full

Thanks for the article, Tokenadult. Some things never change, I guess. In the 19th century, people hated Chinese because they believed too many were taking their jobs. Today, Chinese (and Asians as a whole) are viewed negatively by some because they believe too many are taking spots in top colleges. Fortunately, we've progressed as a people to the point where violence is no longer seen as a solution to the "Chinese problem" but we instead employ less deadly solutions like "non-standarized", non-quantifiable admissions criteria that just happen to negatively impact Asians more than other races. Oh, well.

Many Asian cultures preach the importance of hard work and determination. You're told that hard work will allow you to meet your goals, so you work hard and your parents support your effort. America is a magnet to many Asians because, unlike most other countries (including many Asian countries), hard work pays off in this country. That's why miners came to the US in the 19th century, and that why many Asian immigrants continue to arrive here today. This is why so many Asian students work so hard in high school. This is also why so many Asians feel so upset by AA. It's an artificial barrier that can't be overcome by hard work.

epiphany

The above excerpt demonstrates why it's important to have more than local information when drawing conclusions based on one's own local results.

Read SOUTHERN California. Understand that Stanford accepts huge numbers of Asian students from NORTHERN California. Understand that colleges are businesses, not only in the obvious ways previously discussed (elsewhere on CC), but also in the sense of Town & Gown -- both pleasing the local businesses AND EDUCATIONAL community and feeding into local industry. I grew up in Silicon Valley. Stanford has an unwritten mission to send local high school achievers into Silicon Valley. This is no different than Princeton University taking a huge portion (percentage wise) from Princeton High School -- vs. the percentages any of us see from our own high schools not in NJ, who also apply to P and may be every bit as qualified as the P High School graduates. In addition (and because there is quite a tradition of Native American culture in No. Cal.), Native Americans are definitely favored among URM's, for admission to Stanford. I understand that the poster, and her school, are frustrated about that, but it is not necessarily going to change just because lots of people find it "unfair."

vossron

"Meanwhile, Stanford hasn't accepted an Asian from our school since 2003."

UC Berkeley is considered by many to be a top school. Here is the last reported racial makeup (http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20w...KS%2008-09.pdf):

We should be glad that there is such a variety of schools with differing admission criteria. If one school's admission history doesn't indicate support of your characteristics, try another school that does.

fabrizio

At private schools, maybe, maybe not. At public schools, well...

1. California (1996)
2. Washington (1998)
3. Michigan (2006)
4. Nebraska (2008)

...don't be so assured.

epiphany

^ But we ARE talking about private schools, fabrizio, and they're a whole different kettle of fish than publics. You keep bringing up all the AA challenges in States, targeted toward publics. I don't have an issue with that, and possibly most people don't on CC.

Just understand one thing: If there were ZERO AA at top schools (which would result in something of a dimunition of their numbers there), there were still be thousands of qualified Asian AND Caucasian students NOT ADMITTED to those schools. The number of highly qualified students -- again, by the admissions committees evaluation of 9+ categories considered "important" and "very important" -- which I'll remind everyone are not ranked categories, and who apply to those top schools, is a number exponentially greater than those who "qualify to do the work" (i.e., a good risk) but are URM's.

The elimination of AA, as well as the elimination of holistic admissions not even with regard to AA, will not solve the "overpopulation" problem of applications submitted versus seats available. Anyone who thinks this is just fooling himself. It's in your imagination if you think that changes/reversals in "race" policies will result in extremely different-looking campuses.

Old College Try

epip: After Proposition 209 was passed in California in 1996, the campus of both UCLA and UCB changed dramatically. There was a significant drop in African American, Latino, and Native American students, and a huge increase in the Asian students. So what do you mean when you say, "It's in your imagination if you think that changes/reversals in "race" policies will result in extremely different-looking campuses"? I always thought the basic argument for keeping AA was that the makeup of college campuses would change dramatically in favor of Asians and whites and against URM students if AA were eliminated. Help me understand.

chaosakita

This is true, but could you provide actual numbers?