are colleges racist?

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@Pizzagirl

How sad, to go to a school where no one wants to be an artist, or a theater major, or a minister, or an elementary-school teacher, or an art historian, or an interpreter, or a journalist, or whatever.

</p>

<p>While specialty schools are not for everyone, there are some students for whom they are a good fit (e.g. a school that is primarily about music may be fine for a student who is sure to study music and does not have ability and interest for in depth study in other subjects).</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Ok, that’s a fair point, you’re right.</p>

[coolweather]

<p>…
[back to sleep]</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

I went to a public high school in a part of rural South Georgia. Would you expect there to be “many middle-class blacks” in such an area?</p>

<p>Of course I met many more at Georgia Tech; it would have been surprising if I did not! And I don’t see why it’s “not clear” that I don’t know many middle-class folks?

</p>

<p>Because when asked specifically about middle-class blacks, your first reaction was to say, that you didn’t have any friends among them. Not that it stopped you from making a lot of rhetorical points at their expense (they’re taking up space at Ivy League campuses that don’t belong to them; they should be happy attending HBCUs or second-tier state colleges with all the Asian kids). I was assuming the same was true for middle-class whites, and Asians too. Or, maybe you do have middle-class white friends? And middle-class Asian friends. Just not middle-class black friends.</p>

[NCL]

<p>Re:#2965

@xiggi

NCL, thanks for confirming I recalled the correct post, and also confirming what I just wrote about paraphrasing.</p>

<p>As far as takers, do not hesitate to use your own imagination. Really.

</p>

<p>Please kindly explain to us specifically how and which part of [my</a> paraphrasing](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12869919-post2844.html]my”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12869919-post2844.html) misinterpreted [your</a> post](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12330695-post442.html]your”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12330695-post442.html)?</p>

<p>Here is your post:

[quote=xiggi]

Even we could look beyond the fact that there is hardly ANY comparison possible between the UC system and the Ivy League, as they could not have a more different raison d’</p>

[Ghostt]

<p>

Not at all, but it is a matter of odds. If in the incoming class of GS the percentage of Harvard grads are consistently over the years more than the number of Amherst grads, and about the same number of kids interviewed for the role from both schools, then odds favor Harvard over Amherst. So, anyone wanting a job in GS would prefer to go to Harvard over Amherst.

</p>

<p>Only Amherst’s student body is four times smaller than Harvard’s, so it seems exceedingly unlikely that the number of kids interviewed for the role from both schools will be the same.</p>

<p>Sorry to interrupt the discussion to make such a nitpicking comment, but this particular fallacy–wow, we got 20 people from Cornell this year and 3 from Swarthmore, Cornell’s grad school placement must be seven times better than Swarthmore’s–is really annoying.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>I havn’t read through this entire thread, but take it that after 193 pages, no clear consensus has emerged on the topic question. How would we even know if a college is “racist” or not? Surely it isn’t as simple as comparing the distribution of races in a college population to their distribution in the US population. We’d need to consider the operational outcome (the student body demographics) against the inputs (the applicant demographics) and the selection function (the admission criteria). </p>

<p>The admission criteria can’t be clearly understood without understanding the school’s educational aims. If we are talking about liberal arts & science education (vice career or technical training), then the aims of education are (or should be, in my opinion) primarily intellectual (not moral or social). An admission process can be designed to focus on selecting students who will come to class prepared to learn and to contribute to learning (and ultimately to the discovery and transmission of new knowledge in any walk of life). </p>

<p>Race should be immaterial to such a selection process. The process could be based on what IndianParent described in #2850 (“pure objectivity”), except that this alone isn’t sufficient to demonstrate personal qualities such as curiosity and creativity. The best way I know to expose those qualities in the admission process is through some mechanism like the Oxbridge style interview question (or the University of Chicago essay question) to supplement the “purely objective” criteria. This does introduce a subjective element.</p>

<p>However, I don’t really know if selective colleges are “racist” or not, because in many cases it has become fairly hard to tell what they are really aiming at. The intellectual aims are too muddled up with social and moral aims. Hence all the focus on “extracurricular” baloney and building a “balanced class”. The top British universities don’t consider these factors at all (as far as I can tell). Nevertheless, I bet they attract no shortage of interesting, “passionate” students who are perfectly capable of entertaining each other outside of class.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>tk21769 wrote:

The admission criteria can’t be clearly understood without understanding the school’s educational aims. If we are talking about liberal arts & science education (vice career or technical training), then the aims of education are (or should be, in my opinion) primarily intellectual (not moral or social).

</p>

<p>Well, that’s a neat compartmentalism, and it probably makes sense on a rhetorical level, but it isn’t always so easy to separate the intellectual from the philosophical and the philosophical from the moral. After all, almost all the Ivy universities began their early lives with strong church affiliations; Cotton Mather was the quintessential Puritan minister and a Harvard president; for many years Brown and Wesleyan were the flagship colleges for major protestant denominations, and Oberlin still boasts about its prominence in the abolitionist movement. And, it was the rare college or university that did not incorporate a Department of Moral Philosophy into its classics dominated nineteenth century curriculum.</p>

<p>Obviously, and to their collective credit, they’ve all evolved into purely secular institutions, but, not without some referencing to their early histories. They have to defend against constant charges of being ivory towers and of their lack of accountability to their surrounding communities which are often located in the oldest neighborhoods in town. It’s hard for them to walk the narrow path of purely intellectual institutions.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>UCB - "While specialty schools are not for everyone, there are some students for whom they are a good fit (e.g. a school that is primarily about music may be fine for a student who is sure to study music and does not have ability and interest for in depth study in other subjects). "</p>

<p>When you visit Caltech, they tell you we have an English department but we definitely don’t want people coming here planning to major in it.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I guarantee that the Sixth Circuit’s decision will not be “appealed.”

</p>

<p>Because only conservatives like cases related to racial preferences and more generally, the use of racial classification? Puh-leese.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Only Amherst’s student body is four times smaller than Harvard’s, so it seems exceedingly unlikely that the number of kids interviewed for the role from both schools will be the same.</p>

<p>Sorry to interrupt the discussion to make such a nitpicking comment, but this particular fallacy–wow, we got 20 people from Cornell this year and 3 from Swarthmore, Cornell’s grad school placement must be seven times better than Swarthmore’s–is really annoying.

</p>

<p>So let’s adjust for that. If the number of kids getting into GS from Harvard is more than 4x that of Harvard …</p>

[IndianParent]

<h1>2887 is very well said.</h1>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Increasingly, “moneyed” careers are dependent on graduate level work. The most recent 3 students I personally know who were admitted to Harvard, Princeton, and Brown graduate school – all in science – did their undergrad work at mediocre and mid-level public universities. Definitely not about the pedigree in their case.

</p>

<p>It is a matter of odds. What percent of the Harvard grad school body is made up of such students? Even a loaded dice sometimes produces an unexpected face value. The dice, in my experience, is rather loaded. There are exceptions, of course, but I recommend everyone to have the odds on their side.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Because when asked specifically about middle-class blacks, your first reaction was to say, that you didn’t have any friends among them. Not that it stopped you from making a lot of rhetorical points at their expense (they’re taking up space at Ivy League campuses that don’t belong to them; they should be happy attending HBCUs or second-tier state colleges with all the Asian kids).

</p>

<p>That is not what I said. In post #2465, I said, “Half my high school was black my senior year, and almost half (of the school) qualified for “free or reduced lunch.” I had many black friends and acquaintances, but few were middle-class.” </p>

<p>I have NEVER said that middle-class blacks are “taking up space…that don’t belong to them.” Rather, I’ve said that you can’t create a black middle class through racial preferences if the policy picks blacks who are…already middle class.</p>

<p>“Should be happy” is again your trying to get me to say that I believe certain racial classifications have “places” in this world; I do not. And I never said anything about “second-tier state colleges.” If you will recall, I rhetorically asked why we tell Asians it’s OK for them to go to Maryland (the state’s flagship public) and not Johns Hopkins, but we tell "URM"s that it’s important that they go to Johns Hopkins. Now, if you think Maryland is a second-tier state college, then that’s on you.</p>

<p>Now, it is reasonable to ask whether I’m arguing against a straw man, but I don’t believe I am. Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposal 2 in Michigan was un-Constitutional. The plaintiffs included BAMN–the Coalition to Defend Affirmation Action By Any Means Necessary, and [url=<a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com]articles[/url</a>] quoted the plaintiffs as stating “It’s a great victory. It means affirmative action is legal again in college admissions. It means that thousands of talented black, Latino and Native Americans can go to our public universities.”</p>

<p>Uh, what? "URM"s did not disappear from the University of Michigan after Proposal 2. From the same article, "URM"s made up 10.6% of Michigan’s last freshman class. By contrast, they were 12.6% of the last freshman class before Proposal 2. Yes, the percentages were lower between Fall 2007 and Fall 2009, but I guess the plaintiff’s attorney must believe that a two percentage point decrease means "URM"s are “shut out” of Michigan.</p>

<p>I interpreted the italicized remark to mean, "We don’t care if Asians or whites go to Michigan State instead of Michigan, but if it’s “URM"s, that’s a problem.” Why is it a problem?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

How sad, to go to a school where no one wants to be an artist, or a theater major, or a minister, or an elementary-school teacher, or an art historian, or an interpreter, or a journalist, or whatever.</p>

<p>I submit that the class where the majority of kids march in lockstep to what they believe is Happiness on Wall Street is the least diverse of all – no matter what the color of the collective skins.

</p>

<p>You find it sad, I find it to be an expression of free will and passion in a free society. Which, in turn, is why I do not value diversity. I value freedom and meritocracy.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I hate to disabuse you of your own preferences for a college admissions approach or system, but their system is something that they are prepared to show legitimately produces the kind of class and campus that reflects that institution’s composite priorities. Your very preference is your own bias. Why should they be required to adopt yours instead?

</p>

<p>They absolutely shouldn’t. However, if their priorities are breaking the law, it will be challenged and overturned in the court system. I have always held the position that while this debate is interesting, it will ultimately be the courts that will decide that racist quotas are unConstitutional.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

But please, when it comes to the adjustment factor, let it definitely be not based on race as that is really against the founding principles of this country

Maybe it is against about 3/5 of the founding principles.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>There are groups out there that don’t want affirmative at all and they are targeting all 50 states. There is no way the Michigan ruling won’t be appealed.</p>

<p><a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com;

[IndianParent]

<p>

And again - what never gets answered is – if “their” system produces such crap and is so mediocre because it’s watered down, then why would you want to sully your experience and go there?

</p>

<p>Because the placement stats into grad school and corporations is great. I think we discussed this before. To you, it is all about the experience. To me, and many others, it is not about the experience at all, it is about the diploma and the opportunity it provides in later life. I respect your preference, but somehow I am having a hard time getting you to a place where you respect mine. :-)</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Maybe it is against about 3/5 of the founding principles.

</p>

<p>ROFL!</p>

<p>The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.</p>

<p>Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.</p>

<p>The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. ”</p>

<p>[Three-fifths</a> compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise]Three-fifths”>Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia)</p>