<p>By the way Epiphany, you know why this talk about diversity rings hollow? If Caucasians really wanted diversity, they would have sent their kids to the inner city schools instead of partaking in the white flight to the suburbs. Sure, they have the token middle class African American kid in their midst, who is for all practical purposes virtually identical to the white kid next door, as far as socioeconomic class goes.</p>
<p>My kid goes to a suburban private school that is 90% white. There is absolutely no difference between the Asian, Indian, and African American kids there from the white kids in terms of upbringing, interest, class, what have you.</p>
<p>I don’t know if they do, but I do know that everyone and every institution in the USA should abide by the law, and Joe 6-pack passes the law in a democracy, like it or not. It is not a matter of scope, its a matter of law.</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>Pretty funny!</p>
<p>OK, I get that it will be Ivy League or bust! Fiy, please remember that the S in HYPS is not to show the plural of HYP. If you think that there are SUBTLE differences between Stanford and Cal, you may consider Cal to be the same caliber as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. </p>
<p>Again would you let your kid apply to Cal? Or Michigan? Or USC? Or UCLA? Now you are talking same caliber, or should I say same …league?</p>
<p>That’s a logical fallacy to reverse the statement into an opposing question. If you’re as educated as I think you are, you should understand that intuitively and not be introducing a straw man combined with a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>The fact that some students have options, and entertain those options, does not mean that students who don’t have those options are “close-minded.” :rolleyes: Nor that students who choose UC if given other options are close-minded. But the problem with your entire line of questioning is that it is extremely obvious that you didn’t bother to join this thread until recently. All this was previously covered. I’m not going to repeat myself, or repeat what others have said. Stop being lazy and find it instead of deliberately harrassing others.</p>
<p>To you. Not to a 17-year-old applicant who has lived in a highly diverse region his or her entire life in the United States and appreciates what such diversity has brought to the educational experience thus far, and expects it to continue in the future. I’m sorry to be rude, but the elite universities don’t care about how an individual parent “rates” or doesn’t rate diversity. You’re not the applicant.</p>
<p>Therefore, why are you arguing with me? You’re wasting an enormous amount of time and energy. Your beef is with the Elites. Why don’t you call them up, since you’re so exercised about this? I don’t make or influence college policy. Speak to the decision makers. Tell them you’re outraged about how “racist” they are. That ought to give them a laugh.</p>
<p>Wrong again. And again showing your laziness, since you refuse to read the earlier portions of the thread, and the thread about public vs. private schools. </p>
<p>And my children did not go to suburban schools that were 90% white. My children went to an urban private that was far more diverse than your child’s is. On financial aid. With some others who were on financial aid. Way wider socioeconomic diversity than any suburb. Start picking on some rich people. You don’t even know (obviously) who you’re talking to. You’re filled with prejudice about others, from an online discussion forum, about students you do not know, parents whose lives you have no idea about, all the while assuming that you know where their children do and do not go to school, and then drawing false conclusions from your ridiculously false assumptions.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t think say 67% plain old white, 15% Asian, 10% hispanic, 8% black is very diverse.</p>
<p>Surely 25% plain old white, 25% Asian, 25% hispanic, 25% black would be better (simplifying of course, you need some Native Americans and such too)?</p>
<p>Of course making sure you get people who are culturally Moldovan, Laotian, Belizian, and Zambian, etc. within the relevant group.</p>
<p>If the real aim is diversity, then trying to mimic the actual ethnic distribution is a poor way to do it (in fact, looking too much like a quota).</p>
My kids, who are white, do do this … they live in a very diverse town and at this point prefer the diversity. When they were younger they would proactively make comments after travel basketball or soccer games, especially away games, about how weird it was that everyone in town X was white. For me one of the highlights of SecondToGo graduation was at the beginning of the ceremony they had about 15 kids say hello in the language of the country in which they were born … and yes I believe this diversity very much enriched my kids experience at their high school.</p>
<p>When looking for colleges both kids made a spreadsheet to track attributes of the schools in which they were interested … this spreadsheet had over 30 columns including a lot of demographic data (% OOS, % in frats, etc) but nothing about race. Then we visited in tours, interestinly, while it was not a criteria they had thought about they had an immediate reaction when they were on a campus that was not very diverse … a negative one.</p>
IP, I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you ask the African Ameirican parents on this thread if they agree with this … or if being and African American of any social economic class has a profound affect on their experience in the United States. I live near Boston and the most famous case of DWB (driving while black) I can remember in the area was when a young black man was pulled over … eventually it was determined for no good reason … other than he was a young black man driving expensive car with a white women passenger. He was a Boston Celtic, driving his wife home to their home in the expensive suburb. Tell this rich black man that his race no longer an issue since he is not poor. </p>
<p>For my kids I hope they pick schools with a reasonable population of black, latino, and asian students … not only for the discussions in class abour issues of race … but also for the midnight pizza hallway discussion about issues such as affirmative action, the draft, school choice, or racial profiling.</p>
<p>And I think Shrinkrap’s position here is fine: I [Shrinkrap] want to see more "URM"s in college, period. The problem I have is when I’m reading comments from Tim Wise and others who are pushing for the repeal of Connerly’s civil rights initiatives that suggest that it’s unacceptable for "URM"s to be at Riverside / Michigan State; they have to be at (Berkeley or UCLA) / Michigan.</p>
<p>And in this long thread, you can find many posts from CC’ers expressing similar sentiments that it matters that there are “enough” "URM"s at private elites. If racial preferences were abolished and these "URM"s had to suffer the quote-quote un-quote indignity of attending their state’s flagships, that is not good enough. (But apparently fine for whites and Asians?)</p>
<p>Pages ago, siserune posted an interesting analysis showing that Proposition 209 may not have resulted in the increase in the percentage of Asians at Berkeley after Fall 1998. He plausibly showed that demographic changes may have been responsible for the increasing trend. But what does that imply for you here? Proposition 209 did NOT result in an “imbalanced” student body; it was imbalanced before, and it would’ve continued to be imbalanced ANYWAY.</p>
<p>And epiphany’s argument that Asians are leaving Berkeley because it is not “diverse” enough is an exact parallel to Lowell’s argument in the 1920s that if Harvard admitted “too many” Jews, forget about the Gentiles–Jews themselves would not want to attend Harvard!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the Inside Higher Ed article I posted pages back, Asians are asking “Too Asian?” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I am curious about who actually decides to set the profile of the school.</p>
<p>I see a few parents saying their kids won’t go if the school is not diverse which they have a right to do. Is it their contention that the Ivies are listening to them and going ok the kids won’t show up if we admit more than 18% Asians?</p>
<p>I do not need to ask, I know that very real bias exists against African Americans in the USA. However, very real bias also exists against Asians in the USA. Hence I don’t understand why one race has to make way for the other when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>This was not meant to be personal. Sociologists have documented that white flight from inner cities with majority African American population is very real. Even the most liberal folks rarely send their kids to an inner city school. What is more extreme, these days whites are fleeing Asian majority schools as well. These are all real, documented facts, and no amount of anecdotal personal “evidence” will change that.</p>
<p>Now, the suburban folks would definitely want the token URM or Asian in their midst, so that they can claim to have a diverse experience. It is like my kid eating one piece of broccoli to prove that vegetables are an integral part of the meal. But they would still like majority whites, and the main reason so many are upset with the UCs is that they are on the way to become majority Asian.</p>
<p>Look, we have gone over this before. If diversity was so crucial to all or a majority of 17 year olds, then the quality of the student body would have dropped in the UCs after Prop 209. You yourself admitted that it didn’t happen. Now, a few kids here and there must have left, but they were replaced by other kids of the same caliber who didn’t care about diversity. As, otherwise, mathematically speaking, the quality of the student body at large would have dropped. So stop claiming that these kids who leave when Asians become near majority are the swing voters who decide college admissions policy.</p>
<p>As for who I should talk to, I prefer the judicial system. But I have a question for you. Why are you arguing with me?</p>
<p>It was racist then and it is racist now. 100 years from now people will look back and think how int he world such a racist policy towards Asians survived in the USA for that long.</p>
<p>“And I think Shrinkrap’s position here is fine”</p>
<p>But I’m saying TWO things;</p>
<p>"I [Shrinkrap] want to see more “URM"s in college” (no period). AND</p>
<p>"it matters TO ME that there are “enough” "URM"s at the schools war kids go to. </p>
<p>And I m in the fortunate position to make that happen. I happen to believe that among the many goals of colleges, is to sell a product. It might be especially useful if they can sell that product to a full pay parent. Not quite a “hook” by CC definitions, but for me, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. It’s all more complicated than what I care to explain here, but it means I’m willing to pay more for a private, than I, would if my kids chose a UC.</p>
<p>You have something I want, I have something you want… it’s all part of a very complicated tapestry that (with regard to MY kids), I’m not second guessing.</p>
<p>“but they were replaced by other kids of the same caliber who didn’t care about diversity.”</p>
<p>Or who weren’t in the position to make other choices.</p>
<p>An aside, but what happens if UC’s, and others, become made up primarily of those who aren’t in the position to make other choices?</p>
<p>“100 years from now people will look back and think how int he world such a racist policy towards Asians survived in the USA for that long.”</p>
<p>So then, it will be okay to look back 100 years?</p>