<p>you keep making reference to California with statements like:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>but you seem to forget that this only takes place at Public universities. Private colleges still choose students however they wish. Also at the crux of most of these AA rants are a small handful of private colleges that are also choosing classes however they wish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is necessary to abolish racial preferences in order to fix the problems.</p>
<p>Racial preferences inhibit genuine efforts to help disadvantaged students. The policy fosters a culture of dependence. Instead of taking the initiative to interact with students of other backgrounds, under-represented students have their own dorms, orientations, and in the case of UCLA, even graduations. In the case of faculty hiring, affirmative action departments ask search committee heads to personally hand-write letters to under-represented candidates, urging them to consider their school. Apparently, its not good enough to expect that under-represented candidates will use the same channels of job searching that their peers use. They must be treated specially.</p>
<p>We will never solve the problem of educational inequality as long as the patriarchal system of racial preferences is in place.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Tyler, you make a strong assertion without referring to any data. After 1996, UC started sending more teachers into disadvantaged school districts. They generalized their outreach, which was a win-win situation. The JBHE is mistaken when they claim that race-neutral policies make black students feel unwelcome. More black high school seniors are applying to UC schools now, not fewer.</p>
<p>sybbie,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When UC decided to send more teachers to disadvantaged school districts in the wake of the success of Proposition 209, they did so because they wanted to help the students. The help the students receive did not obligate them to attend or even apply to a UC school. They were free to apply to any school they wanted to, including private universities that aggressively practice modern affirmative action.</p>
<p>Also, if you don’t mind, I’d like your response to my post</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4324328[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4324328</a></p>
<p>Fab, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All I can tell you is that this has not been my experience having attended a NYC specialzed high school as I have always attended schools with diverse populations. I can also say this has not been my child’s experience growing up and attending school in Tribeca.</p>
<p>I can also say that there was no babying when I attended and there is no babying at the college that my D currently attends. However it was both of our experiences that we have meet both white and asian students who had never attended school with someone who was black or hispanic until they got to college.</p>
<p>The reason they have those handwritten letters and additional urgings is because they are competing for a small amount of the most competitive black students, whom are much rarer and thus more valuable to the university.</p>
<p>Further more, you again use false logic by saying AA inhibits genuine efforts to aid disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>the true solution to the racial gap, an overhaul of the K-12 system, can be conducted without eliminating AA. The aggressive recruiting done by UCLA could still occur if AA was brought back into action, and it would only have a synergistic affect.</p>
<p>AA does not cause the separate orientations, dorms, or graduations, that is false logic. Those are part of efforts to increase graduation rates of the students already admitted, whether or not those helped is a case by case situation which is completely independent of AA.</p>
<p>AND it is possible that the increase in the number of black students applying to UCLA is a result of three factors:
a) the generation of AA graduates’ children are beginning to come of age and they are thus stronger students applying to stronger schools
b) They are just increasing as the general number of applicants are increasing
c) probably most likely is they realize that UCLA is hurting for black students and is attempting to increase its yield of black students in any way possible.</p>
<p>It is arguable that forcing universities to abolish AA is actually harming the universities because it is hindering their ability to operate and create an ideal college environment.</p>
<p>-i have yet to see any real proof of the only drawback, this “culture of dependence” that AA causes. The only way i could see this conclusion being reached is when they observe maybe the top 1% of college bound black students who KNOW they are the best of the black students and that colleges are going to compete for them. But you cant discredit a program that benefits the other 99% of black students so greatly, even sending black students wouldnt originally be able to attend or afford a decent university to school, based on the anomaly of the 1%.</p>
<p>I personally think that you just heard a small group rant about how AA would cause urms to become dependant on it and immediately began to support it with no real understanding of why, simply because it conveniently supported your opinion. This “culture of dependence” is based on mere speculation which certainly isn’t enough to go to the extreme of abolishing AA over.</p>
<p>Small amount of the most competitive black students, yes, I see. I believe that without racial preferences, these students will be admitted to top universities by their own merits. Yes, the same merits that are “skewed in favor of whites.” Yes, the same top universities that “Asians can’t look beyond.” If they are truly the most competitive, then they don’t need to be treated preferentially because they’ll make it on their own.</p>
<p>The aggressive recruiting done by the UC system could indeed still occur if the voters of California had not repudiated racial preferences. The recruiting programs were already in place. Proposition 209 simply required that they broaden their outreach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Racial preferences surely do not cause those quirks. They are caused by the actions of persons who believe in “diversity.” And, if you’ll notice, the word I used originally was not “cause,” it was “foster.”</p>
<p>Your three factors explaining the increase in the number of black seniors applying to UCLA, particularly the last one, actually refute the JBHE’s explanation. </p>
<p>What is the “ideal college environment” you speak of? Is it one where student enrollment is capped based on race? Because if it is, that’s a pretty lousy college environment in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are absolutely correct. The policy as is has been immensely beneficial to wealthy black families and African and Caribbean immigrants and their children. Aisha Haynie estimated that as much as 40% of the black student body at Harvard were either immigrants or children of immigrants. To borrow a phrase from the affirmative action crowd, they’re “over-represented!”</p>
<p>Also, Tyler, even though we disagree on this issue, I thank you for your honesty. Unlike some older advocates of racial preferences, you seem to have no problem acknowledging that the policy is responsible for sending black students to schools they would not be able to attend otherwise.</p>
<p>No, your last thought is incorrect. I didn’t hear a small group rant. I read A Dream Deferred by Dr. Shelby Steele and agreed with his major points. And, my dislike largely comes from principles and from my second-hand experience with the implementation of affirmative action in faculty hiring.</p>
<p>“What is the “ideal college environment” you speak of? Is it one where student enrollment is capped based on race? Because if it is, that’s a pretty lousy college environment in my opinion.”</p>
<p>Well thats an aspect of the environment, when u take a glass half empty approach by saying “capped”, that the top private universities strive for. If somebody thinks that a universities environment is lousy you dont apply there. You don’t force them to change their environment because you like the name of the school and want to have your cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>And if 40% of Harvard black students are immigrants, which i strongly believe is a rough estimate, but assume it is, Then you still have to consider what percent of the black applicant pool goes to Harvard. Even when you add up the overrepresented immigrants at the top 10 schools you’ve still only got about 1% of the applicant pool. Thats the anomaly i’m talking about.</p>
<p>If you think logically you realize that because colleges that use AA recruit MORE black students and admit MORE black students, MORE black students are admitted to college. and MORE black students that wouldn’t be able to attend a university or wouldn’t feel that they would have a chance to get in ARE able to get a college education. Thats the benefit to the group that AA seeks. </p>
<p>The fact or the matter is that this argument comes down to what your idea of an ideal college environment is. And i say that you cant attempt to shape a college to fit your opinion, you apply to a college that best fits what you want in a college environment.</p>
<p>not directly to any individual: You choose where you apply, and you know the policies and environment of where you’re applying. So regardless of a universities decision, you have no place to complain or blame athletes, urms, or legacies for the decision. To those universities and to the people who apply to them, racial diversity is necessary, important, and justified. </p>
<p>The whole complaining/whining thing is so unnecessary, and the argument that racial diversity isn’t important is the most idiotic; not because its definitely one way or the other, but because it’s really not your place to say either way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When your peers start making up a more significant group of those making the decisions, then you wouldn’t need “special help.” The overwhelming majority of pristeen job opportunities aren’t made available to the general public. It not only comes down to what you know, but who you know. If urm’s have low numbers amongst the student population, they are abysmal among the faculty. It would just be plain denial to think that race doesn’t factor into that truth significantly.</p>
<p>One of the main reasons that selective school admissions spots are so highly coveted is because of the real or perceived notion that these institutions are a gateway to unique opportunities. Legacies, developmental cases, and athletes are largely respresentative of he majority group so while they are granted similar preferences, it is not as highly debated, nor the merit of those who benefit from it challeged, so vehemently. When it comes to urm’s on the other hand…</p>
<p>If the California model was one to be so emulated, it would signify a regression for minorities, not progress.</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Please indulge me. What is the half-full interpretation of capped?</p>
<p>I agree that if students feel a university’s environment is lousy, then the student is best served by not applying there. You once again supported my position that the JBHE is mistaken when they claim that race-neutral admissions discouraged black seniors from applying. More black students are applying now than ever before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t mind, I’ll use your 1% anomaly / 99% regular terminology.</p>
<p>After California’s voters repudiated racial preferences, black enrollment at Berkeley and LA went down. Thus, the students who did not earn admissions under the new race-blind policy were likely part of the 1% group you speak of. But, overall black enrollment in the UC system went up. Riverside, for example, experienced a 240% increase in black admissions. In other words, the 99% group you refer to was helped.</p>
<p>MORE students of all races are targeted, MORE black students are admitted, and MORE black students are graduating with honors. Furthermore, ALL of these students fully earned their spots. No one is justified in thinking, “Student A only got in because of his race.” Student A’s race wasn’t considered at all!</p>
<p>I disagree with your “know your place” thought. Kindly remember that this is the United States. We have a nice history of free speech. I know you’re sympathetic to socialism, but even so, please do not impose it on others by requesting that they self-censor themselves in the name of political correctness.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>I agree that legacies and their more extreme form, development cases, are mostly white students. But, wait a minute. Mostly white, that means they aren’t all white. That a black legacy and a black development case exist means that these preference systems are more inclusive than racial preferences.</p>
<p>In addition, development cases often have to pay full freight and “then some.” The full freight they pay can help fund the education of a disadvantaged student. That mysterious “then some” might be new football uniforms, a new parking lot, a new building, library renovations, and so forth. Basically, the “then some” has tangible benefits for other students. What about “diversity?” Not only are the benefits questionable, they also might not even materialize given that we’re so keen on providing separate dorms, orientations, graduations, and cultural events for “under-represented” students.</p>
<p>I have no problem with development cases because their admission helps other students.</p>
<p>I doubt my fellow Asians make up a significant group of those making the decisions. If we did, then comments like “textureless math grind” would be called out with the same vigor that is applied to derogatory comments against “under-represented” minorities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting statement, fabrizio. I’ve been in Georgia for a while, and it seems to me that the folks who benefit the most from racial preferences tend to be 1st/2nd gen. African and Caribbean immigrants. I have a hunch, although I can’t prove it, that Caribbean kids tend to be on average more well off than the average African American. Heck, the only black guy I know of participating heavily in contest mathematics is of Caribbean descent.</p>
<p>I’m just curious, where did you get that hunch?</p>
<p>I myself am a Vietnamese Canadian, and I fully realize the underachieving performance of my specific ethnicity compared to the Koreans, Chinese, and other traditional east asian ethnicities all generally perceived as one and the same under the “Asian” label. I think the most presumptuous mistake one can make is that people of the same race are all identical.</p>
<p>
That would be the definition of racism, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm]
–noun
<p>Big Brother 1984,</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090443.html[/url]”>http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090443.html</a></p>
<p>According to Ms. Haynie, 34.8% percent of the black Harvard students she contacted identify themselves as either African or Caribbean. Second-generation black students, who are born here but have at least one immigrant parent, made up 41% of the black students she contacted. By contrast, 3% of all black Americans are second-generation. Using the terminology of the racial preference crowd, second-generation black students are “over-represented” at Harvard.</p>
<p>I myself despise the term “over-represented.” I believe that even though 41 > 3, second-generation black students are not “over-represented.” There is no “correct representation” number.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s possible that Caribbean families here are more financially well off than the average “native” black family. Tim Wise, a passionate advocate of affirmative action as social justice, argues that most Caribbean immigrants bring with them highly developed human capital into their new country. In this sense, the average Caribbean family here could be more educationally well off than the average “native” black family.</p>
<p>My hunch arose from similar circumstances. One of my friends is at Harvard. I actually met him through contest mathematics. He considered himself “mostly Jamaican” even though he was born here.</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, “I think the most presumptuous mistake one can make is that people of the same race are all identical.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again the focus is on urm perceived separtism vs the general population. Are not dorms that have language themes, dorms for specific majors, academic support systems for athletes, greek life, honors programs, and the like not “separating” individuals from the general student population? While they may not separate on the basis of race per se, they are exclusionary to a degree by nature. </p>
<p>What is so questionable about the benefits from coming from an environment having less resources to develop and cultivate human potential, and being placed in an environment that enhances that? Building realtionships that develop social capital and gaining invaluable experiences to enhance economical capital? That happens with diversity. It happens with affirmative action. It even happens when individuals choose to"self segregate" in certain situations. It’s naive at best to believe that the majority of individuals are going to willingly share equitably those things that they covet most. Civil disobedience, wars, and history in general have demonstrated that. The more that individuals are presented with opportunity to thrive, not just get by or worse, the less likely that their future decendants will need the same allowances to attain self sufficiency.</p>
<p>fabrizio, “textureless math grind” was not a stab at asians. It was a stab at textureless math grinds who often happen to be asian. The guy calls the admissions office and asks “why was this kid with a perfect SAT score and strait As rejected” and the ad goes “he was probably just another textureless math grind”. </p>
<p>So you can stop misquoting the whole phrase and turning his words to sound racist when nobody ever said that asians were textureless math grinds. </p>
<p>-you continue to manipulate statistics fab, </p>
<p>AA did not PROHIBIT an increase of 240% black students in the UC system, the additional recruiting efforts caused it to happen. If AA was reenacted while the recruiting efforts remained in place the number of black students in the UC system would increase as well as the number of black students at the top uc campuses. THAT is the ideal situation.</p>
<p>All black students admitted in the UC system “earned” their spots. Whether some people are jealous or bitter isn’t an issue that anybody should be focusing on because those aren’t the type of people a university wants anyway. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that eliminating AA would cause less black students to apply. And i don’t understand why logic isn’t stopping you from making these far fetched claims.</p>
<p>IT WAS NOT THE ABOLITION OF AA THAT CAUSED THE INCREASE IN BLACK STUDENTS. </p>
<p>it was the outreach programs that followed, which i definitely believe was a step in the right direction. Those programs do half the job, getting more black students to apply and matriculate at universities, but the other half can still be accomplished through AA; helping more black students attend the most prestigious of those universities to better spread the diversity and benefit. </p>
<p>-i agree 100% that the current AA systems are not flawless, but dissecting individual urm groups is beyond the effectiveness of current methods. And it appears my statement about the 1% went completely over your head. When you look outside of those top 10 schools where it is the African and Carribean immigrants receiving up to 40% of the benefit, the overwhelming majority of those now being helped by AA are native african americans. AA opponents need to stop looking only in the small elite bubble and observe the grand scale and effect.</p>
<p>It is then that they will realize whether the truly oppose AA or if they just don’t want it to affect them.</p>
<p>Isi t possible that perhaps the increase in the number of black applicants was an effect in large scale shifts in society. There are more black students applying. there are also vastly more white students applying. There are just more students applying, in general. And because the black matriculation rate was so low to begin with, such increases seem much more impressive, and since they correspond to these outreach programs, you assume the programs had the effect. Correlation does not equal causation.</p>
<p>madville,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youre correct, and I agree with you. These dorms are without a doubt exclusionary by definition not everyone is allowed to be there. But, as you noted, the people who are allowed to be there can be of any race, gender, ethnicity, and so forth. They dont exclude by race, gender, or ethnicity. They exclude based on interests and talents.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that students placed in an environment promoting the cultivation and development of human potential have the potential to be better off than if they were placed in an environment that did not have such emphases. If thats your definition of diversity, then were on the same page.</p>
<p>The diversity I despise is the kind that assumes theres a right number of students by race on each campus and that if this right number for a group is surpassed, then any students belonging to that group fail to further contribute to diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed… in a utopian society. But instead of despising adcoms for engineering socially and otherwise the incoming classes in select schools, I’m sure you understand the thought processes. Using your California model in a more merit based situation, asians could easily make up 60% or more of the incoming classes at Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, the flagship institutions. While many on CC like the idea of a more meritorious situation, if those numbers(of asian enrollees) were to be so, there would be a backlash in as much as charitable donations would be in jeopardy of diminishing, alumni being upset, etc. While no adcom is going to tell you what that “right” number is, they are going to construct each incoming class to their “institutional” needs/wants. Not too many urm’s, jocks, musicians, artists, females, males, legacies, developmental, EA and ED, not too many that need substantial financial aid, just a dash of international students, etc. Fabrizio, you and others know how it works and why it works that way. Urm’s are just a small piece of the admission pie.</p>
<p>I mean, what’s a recipe, without a little “soul” in it!..</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>Please tell me what the half-full interpretation of a quota is.</p>
<p>Second, it was not he. It was she, as in the disgraced former MIT Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones.</p>
<p>In Daniel Goldens book, The Price of Admissions, he quotes Ms. Jones,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I therefore disagree with your statement that it was not a stab at Asians. Ms. Jones stated that Park looked like a thousand other Korean kids (emphasis added). She did not say that Park looked like a thousand other applicants. If she used applicants instead of Korean kids, then there would be no problem. Shes talking about the pool as a whole. But, she didnt. She used Korean kids, so she was talking about a subset.</p>
<p>I did not say that black enrollment increased by 240% in the UC system. I said that the number of black freshman at Riverside increased by that percentage. In addition, I never wrote that racial preferences prohibited such an increase. I have always stated that the strengthened and generalized recruiting efforts made an impact on getting more black students into UC. I agree with you that if racial preferences were re-enacted, then the number of black students at Berkeley and LA would increase. Its return, however, may or may not have increased the total number of black students.</p>
<p>All students today earn their spots in the UC system. No one gets it easier by virtue of being born a certain color.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good, so we agree that the JBHE is utterly mistaken when they used causal language to suggest that the end of racial preferences discouraged black seniors from applying.</p>
<p>You dont understand because you forgot that I never said eliminating AA would cause less black students to apply. Rather, it was the JBHE that made the claim.</p>
<p>Besides, in post 129, I wrote You once again supported my position that the JBHE is mistaken when they claim that race-neutral admissions discouraged black seniors from applying.</p>
<p>Tyler, youre younger than me. I expect your memory to be better than this. Its comical when you write something that you think refutes what I have written but in actuality supports it.</p>
<p>I agree with you that the generalization of the outreach programs after Proposition 209 was a step in the right direction. I disagree that racial preferences complement these programs. </p>
<p>Your statement about the 1% indeed completely went over my head. I think you were trying to argue along the following lines:</p>
<p>Under racial preferences, the top 1% isnt really affected by the policy because theyre the best of their group, so theyll get in to at least one good school no matter what.</p>
<p>The real beneficiaries are the other 99%, who you describe as including some students [who] wouldnt [sic] originally be able to attend decent universities.</p>
<p>Assuming that I have understood your 1/99 distinction correctly, I disagree. UC data show that after Proposition 209 went into effect, Riverside experienced a 240% increase in black admissions. It looks like even without racial preferences, the other 99% are not hurt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither is the majority “hurt” when some are passed over for a urm. There are reasons why there is a preference of UC Davis, Berkeley and UCLA as opposed to Riverside. What would that be?</p>