<p>I agree that the Court’s opinion did not explicitly define “critical mass” (ie. there was no ‘…is defined as…’). The term, however, is not part of everyday vocabulary, and hence, it should be defined. Justice O’Connor cited the testimonies of several people, all of whom generally agreed that it is “some” level at which so-called “underrepresented” minority students do not “feel isolated” (cf. “feel welcome”). As far as I know, Justice O’Connor did not cite the testimony of anyone who disagreed with that Mme. Munzel and others stated. It’s fair to assume that in the absence of conflicting definitions, any continued use of the phrase “critical mass” is based on the definitions offered by the testimonies.</p>
<p>As I said before, I believe there is value in racial diversity; I simply don’t attach as much value to it as you do. Since I am opposed to all forms of racial discrimination, be they positive or negative, I do not support affirmative action as it is positive racial discrimination. Moreover, I remain unconvinced that racial preferences are necessary to achieve racial diversity. What’s more, the supposed racial diversity that actually results from racial preferences doesn’t even reflect America’s actual makeup. As [I’ve</a> mentioned before](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]I’ve”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black), first- and second-generation blacks are “overrepresented” in the Ivy League by over 200%. A group that makes up one out of every eight black young adults in the United States as a whole makes up two out of every five black Ivy Leaguers. It’s a socially just thing to benefit people who were voluntary immigrants or their children?</p>
<p>Happy New Year! …Are we letting this go…okay, ignore me. I am okay with that…BUT…</p>
<p>“A group that makes up one out of every eight black young adults in the United States as a whole makes up two out of every five black Ivy Leaguers.”</p>
<p>To me, and I agree, I simply attach more value to it than you, I want to understand this group, and the the other group of three out of five as well. </p>
<p>FWIW, my dad was way back African/Native American, and married a first gen West Indian American. I married a first gen West Indian American as well. “From where I sit”, the boundaries of what got gained and lost in the “gene pool”, who lost, and who benefited are very unclear.</p>
<p>I think it’s important to understand that there need not be any false dichotomy over the value of racial diversity. Bay’s previous posts on this thread indicate a belief that you either believe there is value or you don’t. But that is not the case. I believe there is value, but the amount I attach to it is very different from hers and yours. I do not believe that the value is so great as to justify positive racial discrimination.</p>
<p>I am not against first- or second-generation blacks in any way. I simply do not believe that they should benefit from racial preferences. I do not see the logic in the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>If parent is a PhD originally from Nigeria, grant child of said parent preference based on racial classification.</li>
<li>If parent is a PhD originally from Korea, do not grant child of said parent preference based on racial classification AND treat worse than white student of similar qualifications.</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, part of me wants to scream that there never was any logic in such a system to begin with…</p>
<p>I support admission and hiring decisions that foster diversity, so I support affirmative action. I feel that EVERYONE benefits from diversity in ideas and experiences.</p>
<p>The way you place these two sentences suggests that you believe in racial essential*ism<a href=“ie.%20racialism”>/i</a>, that is, people have different ideas simply because they are of different racial classifications. But is that really the case?</p>
<p>The endless search for some sort of perfect system. The value of racial diversity will be determined by each college in accordance with their own values/product and the law, or lack of it. The emphasis a college may put on SAT scores or GPA or geographic diversity or athletic ability will also be determined accordingly. Some half-wit legacy may well feel he or she is fully entitled to attend an elite because dad and grandad went there and contributed umpteen dollars over the years. They may well be. They set the rules, we play the game. Family A may spend thousands on private schools, tutors, SAT prep and family B may call up Uncle Bill who knows so and so, and family C may use their location or URM status as their free card. There’s thousands of other colleges out there, if you don’t want to play the game, if you don’t like the rules, take 'em to court, hold up a sign outside - or go somewhere else. The elites probably discriminate against thousands of apps every year, that’s their nature, so what?</p>
<p>As far as negative discrimination in admissions, I don’t know of any college that discriminates based solely on race. We’re not taking her because she’s black or Asian or white. I’m not familar with any instances of that. However colleges do discriminate/choose based on other factors. We’re not taking her because we already have 4 others from that high school or she needs too much aid, or she only got a 2100 SAT we’d like a 2110. </p>
<p>They also give positive preference to apps based on numerous non-academic factors. His dad went here. The track coach wants him. He’s a full payer. He’s an eskimo, grew up in an igloo. He’s from Wyoming. He’s Asian we don’t have any Asians or he’s black we don’t have very many of them. </p>
<p>Overwhelming, colleges especially the better ones, choose among economic lines. At the top privates 50 to 60% are full payers. The entire SAT, GPA, AP’s system favors kids from wealthier school districts or private schools. That’s apparently more than acceptable, desired and supported.</p>
<p>I don’t see why one particular form of preference, to blacks, is continually singled out as wrong while other forms of discrimination both positive and negative, and often far more significant are ignored. If we are going to insist on a system that is fair to everyone shouldn’t all forms of discrimination be in play? Why always the black card?</p>
<p>Here’s what I wonder. Why is being born with a certain color skin considered sort of “random” and therefore worthy of no admissions value, but being born with “mad SAT skills” (extreme ends of the continuum)is attributed to the individual? I mean I get that society values intellect, but I believe many kids posting “I got a 2390 the first time with no practice” just got sort of lucky at birth. I know they also often work hard on academics, but in my experience, it’s so much more reinforcing when your good at it. How many seventh graders keep working hard at football when it hardly ever pays of? Especially if their parents aren’t into it either? Clearly we must get kids who struggle to keep trying, but are “mad SAT skills” (2100 in the 7th grade with no prep) largely luck?</p>
<p>I also have heard of people claiming to have obtained high SAT scores with no practice. While I accept that some may genuinely have done so, I wager that most actually did study; they simply want to present an illusion of “I was born with ‘mad SAT skills’”. After all, which seems more impressive, claiming that you got your high SAT score because you followed the Xiggi Method ™ and all the hard work it entails? Or claiming that you got it because you’re a 1337 hax0r and that SAT stuff is child’s play?</p>
<p>I think as you get older, the urge to make such claims diminishes. It’s purely anecdotal, but I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that he earned a high GMAT score without studying. My friends and I all share solidarity with respect to the hours we pored over the official review books.</p>
<p>There is no point in giving you an answer that I have already given in this thread and that more importantly you would not appreciate as you have acknowledged that strict scrutiny and suspect class mean nothing to you.</p>
It might be luck, but it’s not unpredicted luck.</p>
<p>One can predicted the educational background of high SAT performers fairly easily. Parents of high educational background, parents that performed well on IQ tests, etc. Of all those 2350+/2400 students how many didn’t have a parent with at least one advanced degree? Anecdotally, of all the students I knew that scored 1550/1600 on the SAT their parental educational background was highly impressive. Intelligence runs in the family.</p>
<p>So Fab, you’re a crusader for civil rights and fighter against discrimination, but only one kind - preferences for African Americans. Since you refuse to respond, i’ll have to jump to my conclusion - you’re a racist, Fabrizio!</p>
<p>^^^^True; but parents seem to say it too; about their middle schoolers. So you don’t believe there is a significant mount of luck involved in being able to score above say, 2200 on SAT’s?</p>
<p>^^So if high SAT scores ( and I prefer to distinguish this from “intelligence”) run in a family, isn’t that just another “legacy”? How can families of “normal scorers” (say 1600 to 2000) hope for a level playing field?</p>
<p>Well, apparently the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the constitutionality of race as a factor in admissions means nothing to you! Using the strict scrutiny test, SCOTUS said it was just fine. Why do you continue to ignore this, fab?</p>
<p>Using a test (SAT/ACT) that clearly favors Asians and Whites in admissions discriminates according to race. Why doesn’t that get your hackles up? Because you are the favored race in this scenario?</p>
<p>Non sequitur. Racism implies a belief that a racial classification is superior or inferior to other racial classifications purely on the basis of the racial classification itself. My opposition to racial preferences of all kinds in no way makes me a racist; in fact, it makes me anti-racist. It is highly ironic that a person who argues that Asian enrollment has toxic effects on campus prestige beyond a certain level and is nothing more than a latter-day Lowell is calling me a racist.</p>