Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

[kk19131]

<p>MIT is farrrrr more expansive a place than Caltech. Caltech is pretty much a science and engineering institute- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as any other random school of engineering. That is- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as say the Berkeley school of Engineering.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

That’s absurd. Take a school like Georgia Tech. Women weren’t even allowed to enter the school until like 1970. The school is, to this day, still like 70% male. If the school wanted to increase the numbers of women it has, there is no reason why it shouldn’t give preference to some female applicants.

</p>

<p>Oh trust me. I know Georgia Tech very well. I did quite a bit of my high school education in the state of Georgia.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, many women just don’t WANT to go into engineering. You’re statement is based on the assumption that GA Tech turns down a higher portion of women than men. The last time I checked, women were doing quite well even with Tech admissions.</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with lack of sexual preferences for females in Tech admissions. Rather, female preferences FOR engineering are indeed, quite low.</p>

<p>This is the same with your nursing example. A lot of men just don’t WANT to become nurses. Let’s be honest here, most men don’t consider nursing to be the most “manly” profession out there.</p>

<p>

-Because I want the schools to be able to decide. You on the other hand wish to limit how schools can choose to admit people, and I think THAT is unjust.

</p>

<p>Hey, if you can explicitly prove to me that I said I wish to limit schools, then I’ll gladly hand you this debate. Oh wait, can’t do it can you?</p>

<p>Listen, I don’t have to force anybody. People have eyes and brains. I am optimistic that society will see what is just.</p>

<p>

-That’s nice…… what does that have to do with denying colleges the right to conduct admissions as they see fit?

</p>

<p>Now you’re just deliberately trying to be stubborn here. Reread my response. If fail to understand, then reread it again. Repeat until you get the point.</p>

<p>

“Nice try. Unlike fabrizio, I actually believe that development admits are too, unjust. Besides, you don’t really need development admits or legacies to be a truly great university. Take Caltech for example.”</p>

<p>-This is your opinion…. As for Caltech, I don’t even consider it to be a university… but that’s another argument.

</p>

<p>A ha! I thought you would say something like this.</p>

<p>Ok, want some other examples? Take Cambridge and Oxford. You don’t see them fretting over such things like development admits, legacies, or racial preferences.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>

AA has nothing to do with sexual preferences. It’s all based on race. Even then, a lot of females tend to be academically superior to males.

</p>

<p>not true, gender is taken into consideration especially in majority male/ majority female fields</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>BigBrother: “People have eyes and brains”</p>

<p>That’s where you’re wrong…</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

not true, gender is taken into consideration especially in majority male/ majority female fields

</p>

<p>sybbie, I recognize the actual definition of affirmative action. However, the context of the discussion is mostly based on college admissions. I highly doubt that women need any preferences in these scenarios.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

That’s where you’re wrong…

</p>

<p>I know collegealum. But what can you do…</p>

<p>

MIT is farrrrr more expansive a place than Caltech. Caltech is pretty much a science and engineering institute- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as any other random school of engineering. That is- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as say the Berkeley school of Engineering.

</p>

<p>This just demonstrates his ignorance about Caltech.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>Women do receive preferential treatment in education and college admissions especially in fields like science and technology </p>

<p>Men receive preferential treatment in fields like nursing and some teaching professions (regardless of whether or not you think that men would want to become nurses).</p>

<p>Men have become thr largest recipients of affirmative action especially as it pertains to college admissions @ liberal arts schools such as vassar, Kenyon & Sarah lawrence, Randolph and many other liberal arts colleges.</p>

<p>Last year Jennifer Delahunty Britz, the dean of admissions for Kenyon, wrote a column apologizing to all of the young women she rejected in favor of young men.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?ex=1300770000&en=3cfba679d5fb9b06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html?ex=1300770000&en=3cfba679d5fb9b06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

Women do receive preferential treatment in education and college admissions especially in fields like science and technology

</p>

<p>I somehow doubt that sybbie. I don’t know any data sets off the top of my head, but I know for a fact that Caltech admits women at a substantially higher rate than men, despite Caltech being as meritocratic as it already is.</p>

<p>Despite this, the ratio at Caltech is still very much skewed but I believe that’s mostly because of women’s preferences to choose to not to apply/matriculate there. I’m sure you can find some articles on women academically outperforming men per average data sets.</p>

<p>I don’t know much about preferences toward males, so I’ll leave this one.</p>

[madville]

<p>CalTech may be an exception. Kinda like the Bill Gates comparison people use all the time. More often than not, if women want to seriously pursue those fields, opportunities abound. Simply google about interships, scholarships, for women in these fields and look at all the info.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“This just demonstrates his ignorance about Caltech.”</p>

<p>-Oh is that right? Please, do teach me. What about my assessment of the school is incorrect?</p>

[kk19131]

<p>Oh and by the way… </p>

<p>“despite Caltech being as meritocratic as it already is.”</p>

<p>"Despite the proclaimed success of the latest round of admissions, President Chameau has formed an Admissions Task Force charged with reevaluating the current admissions process. The task force is comprised of staff, faculty, and students, with Michael Woods and Maria Gutowski representing the undergraduates.</p>

<p>The task force is concerned with determining how Caltech can best enroll MINORITIES AND WOMEN, and whether admissions should take into account a holistic view of the class, but Bischoff said that, “No one is suggesting a radical departure from the way admissions is currently done.”</p>

<p>No unqualified students would be admitted, said Bischoff, adding that after quantitative standards were met, the admissions committee had to make admissions decisions based on other, more subjective factors."</p>

<p><a href=“http://tech.caltech.edu/TECH/05_14_2007/article1.html[/url]”>http://tech.caltech.edu/TECH/05_14_2007/article1.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>Yeah dude, thanks for proving to us that Caltech is indeed still meritocratic.</p>

<p>

-Oh is that right? Please, do teach me. What about my assessment of the school is incorrect?

</p>

<p>Do you want me to re-quote what you said? I think you can reassess your own mistakes. At least, I hope so.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>There’s no mistake there. I stand by what I said.</p>

<p>And also… Caltech may still be ‘meritocratic’ (to my knowledge most- if not all-schools are), but the school is still looking into less numbers-based admissions, and considering on using affirmative practices when reviewing applications. Like I’ve said many times, this should be left up to the schools to decide. I think it funny that your great example of a meritocracy is indeed itself thinking about using more holistic admissions.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

As for Caltech, I don’t even consider it to be a university…

</p>

<p>

Caltech is as much a university in my mind as any other random school of engineering. That is- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as say the Berkeley school of Engineering.

</p>

<p>

There’s no mistake there. I stand by what I said.

</p>

<p>Hmm…HMMM. Hmmm. Ok. Suit yourself.</p>

<p>

but the school is still looking into less numbers-based admissions, and considering on using affirmative practices when reviewing applications.

</p>

<p>Uh, Caltech admissions is not numbers-based. It is very much holistic, just like at any of the top schools.</p>

<p>And just because Caltech tries to determine how it can best enroll “under-represented” groups does NOT mean that it’s going to practice outright affirmative action:</p>

<p>

No unqualified students would be admitted, said Bischoff, adding that after quantitative standards were met, the admissions committee had to make admissions decisions based on other, more subjective factors.

</p>

<p>You know, there are many ways to promote minorities and women such as <em>gasp</em> outreach programs at the high school and elementary school levels, as fabrizio has repeatedly pointed out.</p>

<p>

Like I’ve said many times, this should be left up to the schools to decide.

</p>

<p>I hear you. I don’t think you’re hearing me out though.</p>

<p>

I think it funny that your great example of a meritocracy is indeed itself thinking about using more holistic admissions.

</p>

<p>Why is that funny? I think holistic admissions is a great idea.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>kk19131,</p>

<p>When did I ever suggest that college admissions be “purely numbers-based?”</p>

<p>My use of the phrase “every aspect that mattered” referred to test scores, grades, course selection, essays, extracurriculars, and letters of recommendation. Noticeably absent are racial identification, ethnic affiliation, gender, and religion, for these aspects have no bearing on participating in university programs. A student will not be denied entrance into the library simply because he’s Sikh.</p>

<p>There is no minimum SAT score for applying to Harvard, much less for being accepted by that institution.</p>

<p>I am glad that you support letting our fellow Americans decide whether they want their states to practice racial preferences or not.</p>

<p>I agree with Big Brother 1984 that students from wealthy backgrounds have more chances to stand out. They are the ones who can afford private test preparation and private college guidance from professionals like Ms. Hernandez. They are the ones who can play so-called “rich sports” like lacrosse. They are the ones who can do volunteer work in underdeveloped countries.</p>

<p>The American Heritage Dictionary defines socioeconomic as “Of or involving both social and economic factors.” The social factors may include a single-parent household, few close relatives, living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and so forth. None of these factors are unique to “under-represented” minorities. They can happen to anyone of any race. I did not misspeak when I stated my support for socioeconomic affirmative action.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That is- Caltech is as much a university in my mind as say the Berkeley school of Engineering.

</p>

<p>Caltech has very strong programs in economics and biology, to name only two non-engineering fields.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“And just because Caltech tries to determine how it can best enroll “under-represented” groups does NOT mean that it’s going to practice outright affirmative action:”</p>

<p>-I never said it was moving toward AA, but that it was taking affirmative steps toward admitting urms. Forming a ‘task force’ is, I assure an affirmative step. You don’t form ‘task forces’ unless you think there is some kind of problem.</p>

<p>“No unqualified students would be admitted”</p>

<p>-Since the schools are the ones that decide who gets admitted or not, the same goes for ALL schools. ALL schools are meritocracies. You can not prove otherwise. </p>

<p>“You know, there are many ways to promote minorities and women such as <em>gasp</em> outreach programs at the high school and elementary school levels, as fabrizio has repeatedly pointed out.”</p>

<p>-These are all affirmative programs. Unless they also reach out to men and the majority, they are ‘preferring’, even if it’s with just recruitment. </p>

<p>“I hear you. I don’t think you’re hearing me out though.”</p>

<p>-Really? Then tell me, yes or no, do you think a school should control its admission process? I don’t want more wordplay from you, just a simple yes or no. Should a school have the right to accept whomever it chooses in the manner it chooses? </p>

<p>“Why is that funny? I think holistic admissions is a great idea.”</p>

<p>-Which includes things like academic interests, race, religion, grades, high school, economic status, geographic location…</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“Caltech has very strong programs in economics and biology, to name only two non-engineering fields.”</p>

<p>That may be so, but all undergrads have to take five terms of math, physics, chemistry, and biology. There is also a requirement of twelve terms of social sciences and humanities, but I’m willing to be that even those are heavily analytic. Such requirements are, to me, far too narrow for Caltech to be anything other than a technical institute.</p>

<p>“The social factors may include a single-parent household, few close relatives, living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and so forth.” </p>

<p>“None of these factors are unique to “under-represented” minorities. They can happen to anyone of any race.”</p>

<p>-They can happen to any race and ECONOMIC status. You can be rich and live in a crime-ridden neighborhood, or have few close relatives, or be in a single-parent home, can you not? Either you are for economic AA and not (socio)economic, or you’re very confused.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

-I never said it was moving toward AA

</p>

<p>You certainly indicated this, if not for your capitalized MINORITIES and WOMEN.</p>

<p>

Forming a ‘task force’ is, I assure an affirmative step. You don’t form ‘task forces’ unless you think there is some kind of problem.

</p>

<p>And what exactly is this task force going to do? We don’t know precisely. So let’s end this argument about Caltech. One thing’s for sure:</p>

<p>

“No one is suggesting a radical departure from the way admissions is currently done.”</p>

<p>No unqualified students would be admitted,

</p>

<p>Also:</p>

<p>

-Since the schools are the ones that decide who gets admitted or not, the same goes for ALL schools. ALL schools are meritocracies. You can not prove otherwise.

</p>

<p>By the same logic, you cannot prove that ALL schools are meritocracies. Rationally, it’s even harder to prove that ALL schools are meritocracies than the converse. So much for that argument.</p>

<p>

-These are all affirmative programs. Unless they also reach out to men and the majority, they are ‘preferring’, even if it’s with just recruitment.

</p>

<p>Wrong. Outreach programs apply to ALL ethnicities and both sexes, not just URMs and women. Reread what I wrote. It just so happens that minorities and women can use these programs.</p>

<p>

-Really? Then tell me, yes or no, do you think a school should control its admission process? I don’t want more wordplay from you, just a simple yes or no. Should a school have the right to accept whomever it chooses in the manner it chooses?

</p>

<p>Yes. Infact, I explicitly stated my position a couple of posts back. </p>

<p>However, it seems to me that you’re not open to the idea of institutions changing their beliefs. That is precisely the goal. For example, take slavery in the Old South. Certainly we didn’t have a “right” to change States’ Rights. But hey, over time people began to see that slavery was unjust.</p>

<p>

That may be so, but all undergrads have to take five terms of math, physics, chemistry, and biology. There is also a requirement of twelve terms of social sciences and humanities, but I’m willing to be that even those are heavily analytic. Such requirements are, to me, far too narrow for Caltech to be anything other than a technical institute.

</p>

<p>I wonder what Ben Golub would have to say about this.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“By the same logic, you cannot prove that ALL schools are meritocracies.”</p>

<p>Sure I can. All schools decide what constitutes ‘merit’, all schools decide how to admit their students. Thus, all schools are meritocracies. See, that wasn’t difficult. </p>

<p>“Yes. Infact, I explicitly stated my position a couple of posts back.”</p>

<p>-Then I see no reason for your arguments. If a school can decide how to conduce its admissions, then let it do such.</p>

<p>“However, it seems to me that you’re not open to the idea of institutions changing their beliefs.”</p>

<p>-Sure I am. I praise Caltech for its affirmative steps toward more diversity.</p>

<p>“Certainly we didn’t have a “right” to change States’ Rights.”</p>

<p>-There is nothing ‘certain’ about that. And who is this ‘we’ about whom you speak? Stick to the topic; your analogy is very poor.</p>

<p>“But hey, over time people began to see that slavery was unjust.”</p>

<p>-They were forced to see this… what about that great war between the states? There was no great realization that slavery was ‘bad’- at least not in the slave-owning states. Further, slavery ended for more political and economic reasons than ‘moral’ ones.</p>