<p>The notion that Ivies are worried that their numbers of applicants will decline appreciably if they stop using race as a consideration in admissions is preposterous.</p>
<p>I think they use race in admissions to assure a just barely minimal inclusion of URMs so that they can somewhat tamp down criticism of their use of the SAT and their practice of resuming spots for legacies. The URM preference is not really about pushing up diversity or truly trying to lift up oppressed populations, it’s a mollifying tactic to allow business as usual for the most part.</p>
<p>And no, Epiphany, I don’t think the admissions committees believe this, I doubt that Fitzsimmons believes this. I’m quite sure all actively engaged in admissions are completely pure of heart and really believe in the nobility of their institutional purpose. But the truth is that if the elite institutions really cared terribly about diversity, they would scrap the SAT, go by the top 10 percent of hs class approach and holistic assessments in total.</p>
<p>Bingo. Highly diverse classes that really do reflect the racial composition of the population. And smart enough kids to do the work.</p>
<p>The difference between affirmative action now and the deliberate suppression of Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League 60 years ago, in terms of respective impact on Asians and Jews, is that the purpose of affirmative action is to boost the numbers of African American, Hispanic and Native American college students, while the purpose of Harvard et al.'s policies was to keep Jewish enrollment down.</p>
<p>Comparing Asians to Jews is illogical; the increased difficulty with which Asians and whites gain admission to the most selective American universities is a byproduct of a policy that favors African American, Hispanic and Native American students, not Asians or whites, while the difficulty with which Jews used to gain admission to Harvard in the past was the direct result of a concerted effort to make it difficult for Jews to matriculate at Harvard (and Yale and Cornell and so on).</p>
<p>This is a textbook example of liberal v conservative thinking; on the one hand we have people who support affirmative action as an effort to *make *people equal, while on the other hand we have people who want everyone to be *treated *equally. Presenting your opinion as fact doesn’t win you this sort of political debate. In fact, no argument fit for an online message board wins you this sort of political debate; people don’t tend to change their political leanings so easily.</p>
<p>Thus keeping out even more textureless math grinds who went to extremely competitive schools and didn’t make it to the top 10%, yet were clearly academically superior to someone making top-10% from a subpar school. That would be holistic indeed.</p>
<p>Another way to put the Harvard situation with racism against Jews is that the purpose was to keep the white enrollment up. </p>
<p>Somehow, keeping White enrollment up at the expense of the Jews is wrong (which I agree with), but keeping URM enrollment up at the expense of the Asians is right (which I disagree with).</p>
<p>It would be unfortunate indeed. This is why I believe that college education should be free for everyone. Let merit rule, and barriers by race and socioeconomic status be removed.</p>
<p>The fact that most American Jews are white, to begin with.</p>
<p>The fact that African Americans and Hispanics are underrepresented relative to the general US population at most universities, therefore affirmative action is not “keeping URM enrollment up,” but increasing it, secondly.</p>
<p>The fact that affirmative action is not discriminatory against Asians by design, thirdly. That was my main point.</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?
It would be unfortunate indeed. This is why I believe that college education should be free for everyone. Let merit rule, and barriers by race and socioeconomic status be removed.”</p>
<p>Do you think that would be “all good”? Education paid for based on “merit, and free for everyone”? Isn’t that how public schools, at their core, work? Well, not just merit, but merit +“need”. I don’t know different*; just wondering.</p>
<ul>
<li>Actually I am intimately involved with funding of public education, plus “special” education, for k-12 plus AB3632, in California.</li>
</ul>
<p>For starters, the purpose of keeping URM enrollment up is NOT to hurt the chances of the Asians. Is it also a given that drastically reduce the URM would … benefit the Asians, especially if it is true that it is NOT all about standardized test scores! And, even it was all about test scores, how about multiplying the impact of the reading part of the SAT to (again) discriminate against Asians! </p>
<p>Isn’t it time to set all the rhetoric aside? Why not ask yourself why are you so determined to see your kid be a part of an institution that is so “blatantly” discriminatory against his or your race? If you believe that Cal (which seems to be your model of fairness in college admission) is of the same caliber as HYPSM, why not gently push your kid in that direction. </p>
<p>And, Cal is just an example of a school that would not consider racial preferences. After all, aren’t we talking about a couple of dozens schools that create all the “discrimination” hoopla and this “crisis” between entitlement and outcome?</p>
<p>I have to confess, I cannot distinguish a Jewish person from a non-Jewish person. So I always found it strange that somehow some people can do it. But fact is they did. So change my statement from keeping White enrollment up to keeping non-Jewish White enrollment up. My point stands.</p>
<p>Your second point is valid, if you consider race. It is not valid if you consider the applicant pool through the lens of merit. In other words, if URMs had sufficiently meritorious candidates who were kept out because of race, I would be all in favor of AA. But that’s not the case.</p>
<p>Your third point is valid, but the effect is the same. You can imagine why that upsets Asians, I hope.</p>
<p>Because I value the diploma and the network far more than the education itself, and have said that before. Private schools are elitist clubs, and hence of huge value.</p>
<p>"t will be unfair towards those without merit, but I know of no better system. "</p>
<p>I edited my post to suggest it would be unfair towards those without merit, AND those with the most “need.” To me, there’s the rub. Why would “the public” (taxes) be more beholden to those with merit, over those with the most “need”?</p>
<p>And if you are “beholden” to those with the most “need” how do we begin to decide where to get the most “bang for the buck”? </p>
<p>Some have decided it is NOT by letting private institutions decide. Some feel they know better. I don’t, but as always, I will be interested to see how this plays out.</p>
<p>Ah, but I will be happy with any definition of merit that the school proposes, as long as it is objective, open, and not based on race. I have said this before. Trust me, any smart kid with dedicated parents can ace any objective criteria for merit through practice, practice, and then some more practice.</p>
<p>Taxes should go to those with the most need by investing heavily in education for those in the lower socioeconomic strata. However, when it comes to the reward (college admissions, jobs, what have you) society has to reward the meritorious, if we are to have a meritocratic society. </p>
<p>If you do not agree with the idea of a meritocratic society, then it’s a different matter altogether. I do.</p>
<p>Also, Ghostt, there is an added benefit for Asians if Elite U.s had to be completely race blind. For sure Asians would take away market share from URMs, but they would also take away market share from Whites. It will be an overall win-win for Asians. I am OK with that, because Asians would do that based on merit (any criteria for merit that the Elite U. may put up) and not based on race.</p>
<p>Agree or not, I see my taxes going to those with the most “need”, not the most “merit”. Disposable income is another story. With that," I do what I want!" (as my son likes to say…)</p>