are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

Not quite. It’s like saying American won’t be America if we let one ethnic group dominate.

</p>

<p>Like, say, Caucasians?</p>

<p>

When I was at Harvard I met a world class cellist, a best selling novelist, a couple of people who became ministers, some captains of industry, a guy who got a McArthur award for his innovative stagings of opera and yeah a bunch of math and science guys who are doing good work in their fields. That’s why you go to Harvard and not the institution down the river. (Though it’s got more variety of majors than it’s often given credit for.)

</p>

<p>Sounds like a lovely experience. You clearly value the creative arts over yeah a bunch of math and science guys who are doing good work in their fields.</p>

<p>Is there any chance your preference for creative arts is clouding your judgment about the downfall of Harvard should more STEM types were to come in?</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Canuckguy wrote:

Quote:
“ROTFL: You’d get no argument from Randall Robinson on that: Randall Robinson On Reparations for Slavery” </p>

<p>Doesn’t square well with Rudyard Kipling, doe it? The beauty of power stands: you can force a third party to pay the reparation.

</p>

<p>Doesn’t square well with all power emanating from graduates of HYPSM, does it? :)</p>

<p>Indianparent wrote:

Quote:
ROTFL: You’d get no argument from Randall Robinson on that: Randall Robinson On Reparations for Slavery </p>

<p>You missed my point. Just because HYPSM does well right now doesn’t mean the admissions policies are equal towards all races. USA did fine as a country before the civil rights movement.

</p>

<p>I have no idea what your point is other than to repeat the same slightly-trollish remark about the civil rights movement. Are you saying, 1) the USA “did fine” in general before the civil rights era 2) the USA had better equal protection policies before the civil rights era, 3) HYPSM had better admissions policies before the civil rights era, or, 4) all of the above?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Is that what the Asians are really asking for? Or do they scream for the elimination of preferences given to a handful of URMs who seem to grab the spots Asians are entitled to?

</p>

<p>Is there a difference?</p>

<p>

In this thread, people continuously present cases that this discrimination should end or posit that it will some day end, and this without ever having made a case that this discrimination does indeed exist.

</p>

<p>Not true.</p>

<p>This article shows that Asians gained at the expense of URMs - and sometimes Caucasians - when AA was eliminated in multiple states.</p>

<p>[eScholarship:</a> Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era](<a href=“Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era”>Admissions and Public Higher Education in California, Texas, and Florida: The Post-Affirmative Action Era)</p>

<p>I know that you will not accept the conclusion of this article, even though it is a peer-reviewed one written by a few real-life academicians who do this for a living. I know that you will point to “debunking on CC” as proof that the article is wrong. I also know that you will not be able to show a single peer-reviewed academic article that does a similar debunking.</p>

<p>In this respect, this thread reminds me of global warming. It doesn’t matter that there are oodles and oodles of scientific data, and virtually all scientists in agreement on one side. The other side will continue to debunk global warming through internet posts.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>Caucasians aren’t one ethnic group and I think America is still being improved by immigrants.</p>

<p>

Is there any chance your preference for creative arts is clouding your judgment about the downfall of Harvard should more STEM types were to come in?

Nah, I don’t think so I married a scientist and most of my friends were scientists, and 2 of 3 boysfriends were science majors, but they haven’t won any Nobel prizes yet. There may have been more accomplished members in my class, but I didn’t know them. (Well dh’s roommate did help get the biggest prime number to date about 15 years ago.) I’m kind of a mix of arty and mathy as an architect. :)</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I have no idea what your point is other than to repeat the same slightly-trollish remark about the civil rights movement. Are you saying, 1) the USA “did fine” in general before the civil rights era 2) the USA had better equal protection policies before the civil rights era, 3) HYPSM had better admissions policies before the civil rights era, or, 4) all of the above?

</p>

<p>Slightly trollish is duly noted. I hope I have not upset you too much.</p>

<p>My point is simple. In the pre-civil rights era, USA was flourishing as a country even though blacks didn’t have equal protection. Reactionaries would point to the success and claim that if the system is not broken, no need to fix it. But the system was indeed broken, even though the output was not.</p>

<p>Hence, pointing out that HYPSM remain great academic institutions is not sufficient, if they do not offer equal protection to all races.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

Caucasians aren’t one ethnic group and I think America is still being improved by immigrants.

</p>

<p>Given that Asians are far less of one ethnic group than Caucasians, surely you won’t mind more Asians in Harvard then. After all, you seem to be OK with the amount of Caucasians at HYPSM.</p>

<p>You think that Asian immigrants are improving America, but their love for STEM will ruin Harvard?</p>

<p>

Nah, I don’t think so I married a scientist and most of my friends were scientists, and 2 of 3 boysfriends were science majors, but they haven’t won any Nobel prizes yet. There may have been more accomplished members in my class, but I didn’t know them. (Well dh’s roommate did help get the biggest prime number to date about 15 years ago.) I’m kind of a mix of arty and mathy as an architect.

</p>

<p>Is that like saying that you have nothing against XXX, some of your best friends are XXX, but you just believe that more XXX will totally ruin the party?</p>

[Ghostt]

<p>

Thus, to tell any and everyone that HYPSM diplomas do not add to economic potential is intellectually dishonest and lying with statistics? People who do value economic potential surely are not thinking about going to work in a non-profit. To extol the virtues of Reed College to them is unethical, as some of them may actually follow that advice.

</p>

<p>lol, if anyone who values economic potential above all else is dumb enough to apply to Reed on the advice of someone on the internet, without doing the minimal amount of research it would take to disabuse him of his misconceptions, then that person damn well deserves to get in and suffer.</p>

<p>

Again, what is wrong with eliminating places for Humanities? Would appreciate an answer from as emotionally neutral a point-of-view as possible.

</p>

<p>But why should universities that provide instruction in the liberal arts admit less humanities-oriented people? What is your emotionally neutral argument here?</p>

<p>

Hence, pointing out that HYPSM remain great academic institutions is not sufficient, if they do not offer equal protection to all races.

</p>

<p>Aiming to maintain an ethnic balance that reflects the racial makeup of the general American population is in fact the one possible approach to college admissions that offers equal protection to all races. It offers guaranteed proportional representation, which is in my opinion quite fair. Fairer than necessary, according to some.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

I don’t think so.
Not all desirable human qualities can be measured by machines. In some cases, “you know it when you see it”. Random audits could threaten academic freedom.</p>

<p>As I’ve said before, I like the Oxbridge system, which is relatively objective except for the faculty interview. Those interviews could not be scored by machine. You have to trust to faculty judgement.</p>

<p>IndianParent, I do sympathize with your concerns. There may be a bigger problem with racial bias than I realize. However, those three steps would not be the way I’d want to address them.

</p>

<p>Here’s the rub. In the Oxbridge system, a faculty in Math is judging a prospective Math student, on his/her Math competency. To me, that is 100% OK. That’s why people go to college, that’s how exms are.</p>

<p>In the US system, an AdCom who likely has no deep understanding - perhaps even no familiarity at all - about the subject is making judgment calls based on his/her social values. That system is fraught with problem, and very unlikely to be objective.</p>

<p>I would perhaps be OK if the AdComs are a group represented the racial and area of interest composition of the student body. So, you would have some 15-20% Asian AdComs at Harvard, and similarly proportional number of those representing at least undergraduate level knowledge in finance or STEM. </p>

<p>The proponents of a quota - nay, proportional representation - system should cheer this. That would be far better than the current AdCom composition which is heavily dominated by Caucasian liberal arts graduates, totally at odds with the applicant and student composition.</p>

<p>However, what I would really like is removal of all subjective criteria, and assessment by professors, not AdComs.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

lol, if anyone who values economic potential above all else is dumb enough to apply to Reed on the advice of someone on the internet, without doing the minimal amount of research it would take to disabuse him of his misconceptions, then that person damn well deserves to get in and suffer.

</p>

<p>That’s an interesting justification for extolling Reed to others without having any idea of their goals.</p>

<p>

But why should universities that provide instruction in the liberal arts admit less humanities-oriented people?

</p>

<p>Times change. The needs of society at large change. Harvard’s course offerings have changed over centuries to keep up with it.</p>

<p>

Aiming to maintain an ethnic balance that reflects the racial makeup of the general American population is in fact the one possible approach to college admissions that offers equal protection to all races. It offers guaranteed proportional representation, which is in my opinion quite fair. Fairer than necessary, according to some.

</p>

<p>While the USSC OK’ed the use of race in college applications, on the above point at least they were quite clear. There may absolutely be no quotas, or, to use a more politically correct tern, proportional representation. That completely violates the premise of equal protection, which seeks to eliminate race based treatment, not institute it.</p>

<p>However, the reason we are having this debate is because the USSC left behind a loophole such that it is OK to magically end up with a quota, the intentional unintentional walk.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Bay, </p>

<p>The whole notion that HYPSM has to use their existing admissions protocol to filter for “nose pickers” is quite insulting to any kid who applies and gets rejected. I’m sorry, if you don’t get that then I’m really bewildered by your stance here.</p>

[Bay]

<p>sewhappy,
It was a simplified example of personal characteristics that would deservedly be filtered out by a subjective admissions process. I’m sorry, but if you don’t get that then I’m really bewildered by your comprehension abilities.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>It was needlessly offensive.</p>

<p>And to suggest that the admissions process is so fine grained as to ascertain that sort of personal habit is completely preposterous.</p>

[Ghostt]

<p>

Times change. The needs of society at large change. Harvard’s course offerings have changed over centuries to keep up with it.

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>How have the needs of society changed recently? Who determines the needs of society?</p></li>
<li><p>Being a private institution, Harvard can either accommodate society’s changing needs, whatever those might be, or choose to satisfy its own institutional needs instead. Like accepting classics majors to create work for its world-famous faculty in the humanities, for example. Or maintaining a diverse class profile, in terms of interests as well as race, to ensure that its graduates will continue to achieve impressive things in all walks of life, not just investment banking and/or biomedical engineering. Why? Because otherwise people who have no interest in banking or BME will become less aware of Harvard, not having a prominent Harvard alum in their field to discuss and admire, and Harvard doesn’t want that to happen.</p></li>
<li><p>As a matter of fact, while Harvard has expanded its curriculum since its founding, the Harvard Divinity School is still alive and kicking. How does that justify a retreat from the humanities?</p></li>
</ol>

[Bay]

<p>At sewhappy,</p>

<p>Who did it offend?</p>

<p>Certainly, students who were not admitted to HYPS should know whether they picked their noses in an interview or in front of those who provided recommendations, shouldn’t they? If they did not pick their noses, then obviously, that is not the reason they were rejected!</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

1. How have the needs of society changed recently? Who determines the needs of society?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Being a private institution, Harvard can either accommodate society’s changing needs, whatever those might be, or choose to satisfy its own institutional needs instead. Like accepting classics majors to justify its world-famous faculty in the humanities, for example. People keep applying, Harvard doesn’t care.</p></li>
<li><p>As a matter of fact, while Harvard has expanded its curriculum since its founding, its Divinity School is still alive and kicking. How does that justify the retreat from the humanities you are proposing?

</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Whenever I read a decent newspaper like the Times or the Post, it seems that some commentator or other is ruing the lack of homegrown STEM majors that is crucial to keep America in the run for global excellence. I personally disagree, as in a global economy it is far cheaper to import talent than develop it, as long as talent is cheap, and currently it is super cheap in dollar terms. However, I also recognize the political sensitivities of importing foreigners for the highest paying jobs in the country.</p>

<p>But that is neither here nor there. If the short supply of STEM talent in the USA is indeed true, surely the nation’s top schools should do something to help and fix it? Sure, they can decide to ignore it, and absolve themselves of any social responsibility, and stick to divinity schools, but given their stated principles of social responsibility, and given what they expect of their students, it would seem odd, at least to me.</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>It’s just a totally off key comment.</p>

[Bay]

<p>It is my writing style. Writing long explanations doesn’t work for me.</p>

[Ghostt]

<p>

What do you think?

</p>

<p>First and foremost, I think there is already an oversupply of STEM majors (in certain fields) that is only going to become more tangible as more and more engineers enter the job market.</p>

[Bay]

<p>IP,
It sounds like you want to force HYPS to conform to your desires or the desires of its applicants. Why should it? It should if that is where the $$ and power are. Otherwise, they’ve got a lot of tenured professors to answer to.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

and absolve themselves of any social responsibility, and stick to divinity schools

</p>

<p>Maybe they believe that one essential aspect of social responsibility is to provide a thriving divinity school in a relatively God-less culture.</p>

<p>Why does every private college have to share your vision of social responsibility? By whose authority do you presume that?</p>