<p>I never once represented that it did. It does, however, very much impact the quality of not only the entire social experience, but of the intellectual exchanges that occur in the classroom, such as when discussing history, immigration, class, economics, and when deconstructing stereotypes, such as when a black of Hispanic student is admitted to a science program. Thoughtful students who are broad-minded want to expand their minds further in college, not restrict them to people whose experiiences are too much like their own or like each other’s.</p>
<p>"But 66% of all African Americans in the Elite U.s. "</p>
<p>I got that. 66 percent of 2000 kids,</p>
<p>So most kids at elite schools think most black kids are middle class, and have an unfair advantage,and most black kids think, black kids don’t go to elite schools.</p>
<p>For a 4-year undergrad experience, some of the Ivies come quite close, given how many different ethnicites, races and national origins they admit as undergrads. All 50 states, many countries, many races and mixtures of races. “The fullness of the American experience” is something no one assumes will be completed, but it’s much more of a taste than they will currently get as a UC undergrad.</p>
<p>Are you saying that all UC graduates and students since Prop 209 are not thoughtful?</p>
<p>Look, the entire social experience as you put it depends far, far more on socioeconomic class than racial class. Your own post highlights things that are particular to the socioeconomic class. So create a hook for poor kids! I am all for it. There are plenty of Asian poor kids who will benefit tremendously.</p>
<p>As for deconstructing stereotypes, it is only deconstructed if a URM kid gets into STEM though his/her own caliber. A quota system deconstructs nothing. People simply see through it. You seem to hold a awfully low opinion of the caliber of the URMs.</p>
<p>Yes, but wouldn’t you expect them to complain of the share of white students, as by your own admission they don’t like a high percentage of any race, white, Asian, and something else?</p>
<p>Do you have some kind of envy of Ivy-qualified students or something? Is this something personal for you? Ivy-qualified students who have multiple offers (UCB Regents scholarship, with full aid, + offers at 3-4 Ivies) don’t need to go to Riverside for diversity. They can go to an elite U and get both the intellectual peers that they deserve and the racial diversity which they seek.</p>
<p>So what is the problem? The quality of the student body doesn’t drop at the UCs, those that don’t like lack of racial discrimination can go somewhere where racial discrimination is in vogue, and life is good - right?</p>
<p>xiggi, I must confess that I know very little about Stanford, my kid is not going to apply there, but I do know that both Stanford and UCB are extremely well thought of. If there is subtle difference in quality, I am still having a hard time understanding how that can explain double the share of Asian kids in UCB vs. Stanford, especially if the top kids actually accept Stanford over UCB.</p>
<p>What’s your point? Like ucbalumnus, your point seems to be to strive for perpetual argument. Both of you are stating in essence that there’s not much of a difference or something between the flagship UC’s (in diversity) and the elites. There is a difference. It’s observable and reportable. It has nothing to do with percentages but an overall range of experience (geography, race, economics, ethnicity, nationality, religion, everything). Too bad. </p>
<p>To put it another way, there are also accomplished students from certain states who choose not to go to particular privates and publics because the same high school mentality is there that they experienced before college. That, to them, is not a broadening experience. It’s not about “numbers” per se. Go to a different state, a private college which welcomes brilliance from all corners of the globe, and guaranteed your mind will be open beyond the range that you will experience at a U.C. No one has ever expressed it quantitatively to me, nor would I ever expect them to even conceive of it quantitatively.</p>
<p>Of course, it isn’t surprising that a state university’s students come heavily from its own state.</p>
<p>Only if you define the “fullness of the American experience” narrowly as you do will the elite universities have an advantage. It is likely that a student who starts his/her post-secondary education at a community college and then transfers to a good (not necessarily elite) four year university to complete his/her bachelor’s degree sees more of the “fullness of the American experience” in terms of interaction with students from varied backgrounds than the student who attends four years at an elite university.</p>
<p>You are the one expressing a problem with it, not I. The “person” (institution) who loses is U.C., because they are losing some of the academic elite to the Ivies, for the precise reason of greater diversity elsewhere. And I’m not buying your “racial discrimination” moniker. The students who choose diversity along with excellence don’t consider a broad campus experience to be discrimination. They actually experience U.C. as discrimination because of the virtual elimination of the black student population.</p>
<p>Again, relative to U.C., it’s “full.” And the Elites, who make the policies – not you, not I, want to keep it as full as possible within the confines of having to fill departments and classes and campus activities and institutional needs such as funding. It’s an imperfect arrangement but one heck of a lot better than U.C., to those students who do have the choice to consider alternatives.</p>
<p>In any case, I am not known for being obscure. I think I communicate fairly clearly. It’s just not a clarity that two of my debaters want to hear. It’s a clarity that I report from my students, whom you want to correct, with your worldview, in absentia. They’re not listening, because they happily relate to brilliant students from all 4 corners of the globe, and they find that refreshing and not “discriminatory.” I think it’s time for us to stop dominating the thread & allow some other voices in here.</p>
<p>Since you agree that the quality of the student body doesn’t drop, UCs lose nothing when these racist kids go elsewhere. You don’t have to buy anything I say, but I will continue to hold that anyone who treats the different races differently is a racist.</p>
<p>My point is simple. You have earlier said that these kids who flee from the UCs don’t like an overabundance of any race, including Whites. Yet they go tot he Ivies where Whites are in majority. I am having a hard time reconciling this, so perhaps you can help. Perhaps a majority of Whites broaden minds, but a majority of Asians don’t? What’s the key issue here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not saying that at all. I am saying that diversity is overrated, and racial discrimination is the mark of a racist, and also illegal. You don’t have to agree.</p>
<p>Yet you try to avoid the question by steering it toward black students, which is less relevant than white students with respect to who is claimed to be “crowding out” Asian students in terms of what university administrations are trying to do with respect to diversity.</p>
<p>Don’t knock these kids. They bring crucial diversity in the classroom, and sharing experiences with them in the hallowed halls of the Ivies enables erstwhile close-minded kids experience the fullness of the American experience and become open-minded.</p>