<p>S1 went to a private HS with a social mission to bring promising inner city students to the school and help them get to college. Great school but the problem with this model is, all the URM (except him) are poor inner city kids and so they have similar backgrounds and can leave the impression on the less thoughtful that ALL blacks and latinos are poor and from the inner city.</p>
<p>My son’s experience at an Ivy has taught him NOT to assume that the black or latino student in class is a poor inner city kid. Many are not. This is a great thing. Like whites and asians, blacks and hispanics come in all shapes and sizes. I am glad there is a socio-economic diversity among URMs at top schools.</p>
I’m not sure that’s my philosophical question. Mine is this: is it right to base competitive admissions to an academic institution - in part or in whole - on anything other than academic merit of applicants? If so, is it right to do so if these bases are uncontrollable by applicants?</p>
<p>Sigh. Fabrizio, find a shred of data that suggests that whites and Asians choose STEM fields at the same rate at selective colleges. A shred; any shred. You know it simply isn’t so–are you just arguing this to be contrary? Or is it just too awful for you to think that this might be a substantial cause of admissions disparity at those schools?</p>
<p>soomoo
Good point BUT the real question is whether the non-inner city URM’s deserve a boost. </p>
<p>Do they NEED a boost would be the way the AdComms would word it, because they want diversity in the form of representation from all “groups” as they define them. But are middle class and upper middle class URM’s really a different group from others who are upper middle and middle class?</p>
<p>The point of my questions is to get an answer, but also to stimulate thought about how these groups are being defined.</p>
<p>“So the question comes down to why does a kid with two physician parents require help based on skin color to get into college?”</p>
<p>I don’t know why, but they might. Statistically, those physicians kids are still likely to score a little lower than white and Asian kids with the same income. Maybe one will score higher, and three will score lower. With numbers that small, who knows? Those physicians kids are less likely to have wealth even if they have income. Those physicians kids are less likely to be a few generations into this college competition thing. Those physicians kids parents are probably more likely to still be paying school loans while paying for there own kids to go to school. So what? Ok.</p>
<p>"Wouldn’t a black janitor’s kid with a lower GPA and SAT score be better served? "</p>
<p>Yes. but I worry you are going to find just a very tiny number of janitors kids with the SAT scores, GPA’s, EC’s, resources, and family support to compete successfully. And I think that is not the only kind of URM that contributes to diversity. My kids friends ( none are black) tell them they are "the whitest black kids they know. Hmmm…they are the ONLY black kids they know. I think this means my kids help them redefine what a black kid is. So what? Ok.</p>
<p>“I’m not sure that’s my philosophical question. Mine is this: is it right to base competitive admissions to an academic institution - in part or in whole - on anything other than academic merit of applicants?”</p>
<p>Most seem to agree it is not only about academics.</p>
<p>If so, is it right to do so if these bases are uncontrollable by applicants? </p>
<p>I believe most things are uncontrollable by most applicants, at least until about the 7th or 8th grade. So much has already happened by that time.</p>
This is a really good question, and the answer may not be the same for all URM groups. In addition, your answer may be different depending on what you’re really trying to accomplish with affirmative action. If all you really care about is diversity, then it is my perception that black Americans, at least, still have a sufficiently different experience from whites, even if they have money, that it justifiable to favor them on diversity grounds. If your real purpose is social engineering, the justification is even stronger, because you’re trying to boost black achievement all the way up the chain.</p>
<p>I find arguments more persuasive that it’s a different story for Hispanics, who perhaps shouldn’t be grouped together as much as they are. But I know a lot less about that.</p>
<p>Some Asian applicants have parents who are janitors. So do some white applicants. So do some Hispanic applicants. And Native American applicants.
To me this seems ridiculous!!</p>
<p>Hunt - I am not saying they should be completely ignored. However, it is believed that most URMs attending the top 20 are already from upper middle class.</p>
<p>There is a african american girl on CC I was trying to persuade a few weeks ago to not give up applying through questbridge to some of the elite schools. She seemed very bright (95% in calculus) but felt her SAT scores were not where they need to be. Her goal was to attend a college with special ed and her view was none of the top schools provided that. My feeling was that someone that bright should nt be settling to just complete undergrad and stop there. She said her parents were not able to advise because they did nt attend college. </p>
<p>I have seen similar examples like that where poorer URMs seem to be settling without even trying because they do not have any guidance.</p>
This is true–top schools do practice outreach to try to find kids like this. I think it is almost certainly the case that the Ivies will “dip down” more in terms of stats to take a poor URM kid than they will to take a rich one–they really, truly would like to get the poor ones as long as they think they can thrive. Adcoms are mostly relatively young idealistic people themselves.</p>
<p>Apparently acknowledging limitations and writing “I do not deny this possibility” mean nothing to you. Perhaps I should not be surprised given your belief that your opponents on this issue are either in a “phase” or idiots?</p>
<p>You can call me insensitive, ignorant, an idiot, or what have you. I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with your insisting that opponents to racial preferences will one day realize that you were “right all along.” That’s extremely condescending. Why even participate in this discussion if you believe that EVENTUALLY, your opponents will see it your way? Because you’d like for us to see it sooner? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"Some Asian applicants have parents who are janitors. So do some white applicants. So do some Hispanic applicants. And Native American applicants.
To me this seems ridiculous!! "</p>
<p>I may be missing your point, but was under the impression that those (first gen, poor) kids got a “boost” at top schools too, and maybe more than the wealthy black kids.</p>
<p>fabrizio, can’t you answer even one question? What effect on admissions at top schools would it have if Asians choose STEM majors at a much higher rate than whites? And don’t you, personally, believe that in fact, Asians do choose STEM majors at a much higher rate than whites?</p>
<p>I haven’t called you most of those names, but you sure are stubborn when it comes to ducking questions.</p>
<p>Can’t admit a class full of STEM majors, so admissions rates may be depressed. Never denied this. I simply asked for evidence. Which brings us to…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>siserune’s source (1995-2001) says they do. I did not dispute that, though my saying so means nothing to you, perhaps because I note that a more recent finding (2004) shows that significantly more "URM"s are involved in STEM majors than they were from 1995 to 2001.</p>
<p>Yet, from 1995 to 2001, there was no difference between white and “URM” participation rates in STEM majors. If that continued to hold in 2004, then there’s no gap between whites and Asians in STEM major participation.</p>
<p>But I acknowledged that it’s very possible that white participation has stayed constant or even dropped, which could explain why there’s no gap between white**+**Asian and “URM” participation rates. My acknowledgement does nothing for you; I’m still a denier for daring to point out that the 1995-2001 and 2004 figures for "URM"s drastically changed.</p>
<p>Now, if you please, perhaps you would like to tender an explanation for why “URM” participation rates in STEM majors went from ~20% in 1995-2001 to ~34% in 2004?</p>
Remove the word “competitive” from my question, or change the word “competitive” to “selective”, and answer it that way. Very little about the ethical question depends on what the admissions people like to call what they do.</p>
Your definition, which you have not shared with us, does not appear in Websters Third New International Dictionary. If you wish to rely on some inferior version of Websters, then carry on.</p>
<p>Looking at the word “racism”, it’s clear that the positive meaning is much simpler than the one which incorporates the connotations and bad feelings that people happen to have about racism. This is simple etymology. </p>
<p>It appears “racism” is a somewhat modern version of “racialism” which, before ~WWII, had a much less negative connotation. We can use the word “racialist” rather than “racist” if you want.</p>
<p>It’s not my fault if you’re not aware of words’ shades of meaning. You might consider not pretending to know more than you do, though… it is a little unseemly.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, your last post to me makes absolutely no sense. Maybe if I spent an hour trying to parse it, it would. But I have to pack and since I’m gone for a long weekend, I am bowing out of this discussion.</p>