Diversity: Explicit Example

[fabrizio]

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>

And I’m not speaking of subjective factors like Ec’s and Essays. I’m talking of first generation? Why is that considered?</p>

<p>I’m not mixing correlation and causation. I’m implying correlation in all factors included.

</p>

<p>Because first generation status is a genuine indication that the student has overcome obstacles and is writing family history?</p>

<p>You did mix correlation and causation. You wrote, “…several sociological studies which show that said factor has a negative effect on test scores…Are you saying that such correlation doesn’t exist between race?” Correlation makes no conclusion about either cause or effect. It can at most say, “these things go together.”</p>

<p>Are you avoiding some of my questions because I haven’t answered some of yours? If so, list all the questions you think I haven’t answered, and I’ll answer them. You still haven’t told me how you classify my hypothetical application that is neither “numbers only” nor “whole,” and you still haven’t told me what you make of UCLA, which defies your “if you don’t do this, then you can’t do that” rule.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Holistic admission is considering essays and ECs in addition to GPA and SAT. Affirmative action is considering race.

</p>

<p>Ummm… Yeah. Every one go ahead and ignore Easy’s posts. He or she has no idea what he or she is talking about… </p>

<p>

Or was it because Asians are strong students because they tend to be the descendants of the most capable and driven members of their native countries? In that case, I guess we should punish them for being the descendants of the more competent.

and might be a racist…</p>

<p>

Beneficial to the women who get in and the existing male students at the school who get a greater influx of booty, but woefully unfair to the males who get denied because of it.

and might be a sexist.</p>

<p>Easy, I would suggest that you make a genuine effort to become informed on this topic before adopting such strong opinions. There is a good thread about race/gender/affirmative action/holistic admissions/etc. in the College Admissions section… Also, I think a little bit of diversity as well as a few history classes could do you some good.</p>

[Easy]

<p>Yup. I’m obviously a racist and a sexist, because I’m against using race and sex as factors into admissions and hiring. </p>

<p>

Easy, I would suggest that you make a genuine effort to become informed on this topic before adopting such strong opinions. There is a good thread about race/gender/affirmative action/holistic admissions/etc. in the College Admissions section… Also, I think a little bit of diversity as well as a few history classes could do you some good.

</p>

<p>I would suggest becoming less transparent in your effort to be condescending and your attempt at adopting a position of superiority. I could advise that you take some classes in pragmatism and accepting facts, but that would be perceived as nothing other than a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise my lack of content, adding zilch to the discussion.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Newjack88,</p>

<p>Are you so sure that you know what you’re talking about? Earlier, you claimed that affirmative action is holistic admissions. In fact, you wrote “affirmative action = holistic admissions.” Yet, I pointed out that UCLA is barred from using affirmative action yet still has its holistic review. Its holistic review is not equal to affirmative action. Your equation does not hold in all cases and thus is not an equation.</p>

[Easy]

<p>

Is the person with a family income of 100k better qualified just because of a better overall application? Tell me that you wouldn’t consider the circumstances? Tell me that with a lower income, chances are, the student’s application will be “worse” than someone of a much higher income?
Should we not consider these factors?
Now here, I’m just considering income. There are so many other factors to consider…

</p>

<p>That’s another point entirely, income. Affirmative action = race-based. Maybe if colleges said that what we perceive as affirmative action is the result of them controlling for income with some algorthims, but they don’t even try to make that claim. In particular, I remember MIT’s [former?] Dean of Admissions said that they take every qualified underrepresented minority. That qualification level could be pretty low; perceived selectivity would be enhanced by competition among non-URMs for the remaining spots. Let’s say the strength of a student can be measured on a scale 1-100. Their bar could be set at 2; every URM student above a 2 would get in. And then they take only strongest non-URMs with the remaining spots. Meaning a lot of better qualfied non-URMs would get denied, with lesser-qualified URMs in their place.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>fabrizio:</p>

<p>Are you sure you are reading all of the posts? See post #111.</p>

<p>Easy:</p>

<p>

Yup. I’m obviously a racist and a sexist, because I’m against using race and sex as factors into admissions and hiring.

</p>

<p>How can you not see how your post was both racist and sexist? You were clearly talking about Asians being a superior race and you were saying that the only benefit of having more women around is “more booty.”</p>

<p>Anyway, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You said, “Holistic admission is considering essays and ECs in addition to GPA and SAT. Affirmative action is considering race.” Go read the admissions policies of a couple universities and read Powell’s opinion for the Bakke case.</p>

<p>I really think you could benefit from interacting with people who are different than you.</p>

[Bourne]

<p>The sociological implications of race and first generation are both consistent. Both are assumed to have detrimental effects on overall academic performance. </p>

<p>Race - Being Hispanic – seeing few success stories, realizing the role many like you have played in society, Hard working day laborers, – maybe encountering racism down the line. The admissions process assumes that MOST hispanics undergo such problems. I think there’s a difference between being poor and white and poor and hispanic. Being poor and white doesn’t mean you end up a statistic. Being poor and hispanic? Tell me there’s a large chance of upward mobility. </p>

<p>First Generation - I’m sure you know this drill.</p>

<p>Anyways.</p>

<p>With regards to UCLA. They’re practices I feel are bogus. They include a factor - first generation - in their admissions process, but they discard another - race. That’s what I’ve always said. </p>

<p>And please don’t quote something I said while mocking you.</p>

<p>With your whole application? What exactly is that?</p>

[Agent_of_Sense]

<p>From the MIT website:</p>

<p>

Affirmative Action</p>

<p>In undergraduate recruitment and selection, MIT looks at each application holistically, taking account of many different factors that have shaped a student’s experience, including his or her racial, ethnic, social, economic and educational context. We believe it is crucial for the successful future of our world to educate people from every walk of life, and we take great pride in the diversity of our student body, which is typically made up of 19-22% underrepresented minority groups.

</p>

[Bourne]

<p>Context. Not exactly you’re black you’re in as some would like to think.</p>

[Easy]

<p>

How can you not see how your post was both racist and sexist? You were clearly talking about Asians being a superior race and you were saying that the only benefit of having more women around is “more booty.”

</p>

<p>Yeah, because CLEARLY there’s no difference between claiming one race is superior and saying that the more competent members of one race will be more successful than the general members of other races. </p>

<p>Their overall season team records were the same (41-41), but the starting five for the 2008 Portland Trailblazers are better than the seventh through twelfth men of the 2008 Toronto Raptors.</p>

<p>I was half-joking, but if a female-dominated university started getting an influx of males, I would say that the females would be thrilled too. Most men are sexually attracted to women and vice versa. </p>

<p>I also wouldn’t want say, dance schools to start denying better qualified women to admit men. </p>

<p>I could make all kinds of baseless claims, like you’re clearly an idiot. Don’t be so quick to portray me as villain to validate yourself.</p>

[Agent_of_Sense]

<p>More from there:</p>

<p>

“Should I include my ethnicity on the MIT Application?”</p>

<p>As a minority, how many times have you heard some off-handed comment about someone of color getting into college because of their race? The implication, of course, is euphemistically known as affirmative action. You may be hesitant to report your ethnicity because you don’t want to be perceived as an “Affirmative Action admit.” Instead, you want it known that you were admitted on the basis of your merit.</p>

<p>So should you report your ethnicity or not?</p>

<p>Of course you should! Despite all the stereotypes and rumors to the contrary, being Black, Latino, Native, or any other minority is not enough to get you into any college or university, let alone MIT.</p>

<p>So why then do we ask for this information? Simple - it helps us to understand who you are - in context. Remember, we don’t get a chance to meet the vast majority of our applicant pool. We need to capture as much information as possible so that we can make an informed decision. You’ll hear me talk a lot about FIT & MATCH.</p>

<p>Think of your application as you would a giant, complicated jigsaw puzzle. Anyone worth a pound of Harrar coffee (coffee grown in Yemen or Harrar region of Ethiopia) knows the first step to “solving the puzzle” is connecting the corners and the outside border. Once the puzzle is framed, the remaining pieces are easier to connect. Crafting a class is similar - we go into painstaking detail to connect the right pieces.</p>

<p>Why is this piece of the puzzle so important? The truth is: ALL PIECES OF THE PUZZLE ARE IMPORTANT! Again, we evaluate each application in context, and the more context we have, the better.</p>

<p>Ultimately, it is your choice to decide what to include in your application. Certainly students who don’t report their ethnicity get admitted to MIT. If you are that passionate about not reporting the information, don’t. But remember, only you can have the pieces to make the puzzle complete.

</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Newjack88,</p>

<p>My apologies. I forgot that in #111 you revised your equation to note that they’re not the same thing, they just have the same intention.</p>

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>

The sociological implications of race and first generation are both consistent. Both are assumed to have detrimental effects on overall academic performance.

</p>

<p>Earlier, you wrote “several sociological studies which show that said factor has a negative effect on test scores…Are you saying that such correlation doesn’t exist between race?” When I stated that you had confused correlation with causation, you responded that you had not confused the two. Instead, you were “implying correlation in all factors included” all along. Yet, here you are using the word “effects” again. Correlation can make no conclusions about either cause or effect. It can at best say, “A and B occur together.”</p>

<p>Concepts aside, I would like to read your source(s) for your statement that race is “assumed to have detrimental effects on overall academic performance.”</p>

<p>I think that “MOST hispanics undergo such problems” is a very poor assumption and even more so for Hispanics that live in majority Hispanic areas. One of my friends is from Miami and told me that he didn’t know a single anti-Hispanic phrase until he turned 16. Another of my friends is from El Paso and is half white American and half Mexican. Like Bill Richardson, he chooses to identify as Hispanic even though his father is a white American.</p>

<p>Bogus or not, UCLA shows that your “if you don’t do this, then you can’t do that” rule isn’t true. Conceptually, it’s clear that you don’t have any grasp of what strict scrutiny means. Race is a suspect class. No matter how you spin it, it’s just not the same as socioeconomics or geography.</p>

<p>

With your whole application? What exactly is that?

</p>

<p>In post #79, you wrote “Either applications are reviewed on nothing but merit, and we’ll have hundreds of kids from the Northeast and California filling our top schools or we can consider applications as a whole.” I pointed out that this is a false dichotomy; it is not an exhaustive classification. I gave you an example of an application that asks for SAT score, GPA, essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations. Since this application has subjective criteria, it’s more than just merit. However, it doesn’t ask for gender or race, so it isn’t a “whole” application.</p>

<p>How do you classify this type of application? It defies your “either/or” system.</p>

[Bourne]

<p>The correlation between Academic performance and different races is obvious. Effects is a word choice. I shall pick another if it offends you. </p>

<p>Point being, you’re ignoring the correlation between race and academic performance. Colleges and Universities have decided that this correlation exists because of a number of reasons. Some of which I pointed out to you. </p>

<p>

I think that “MOST hispanics undergo such problems” is a very poor assumption and even more so for Hispanics that live in majority Hispanic areas. One of my friends is from Miami and told me that he didn’t know a single anti-Hispanic phrase until he turned 16. Another of my friends is from El Paso and is half white American and half Mexican. Like Bill Richardson, he chooses to identify as Hispanic even though his father is a white American

</p>

<p>We both generalized here, however I really think that people would agree with my generalizations than with yours. Do your friends watch tv? Do they turn on the news? Do they hear about policy decisions? They’ve heard no stereotypically negative generalizations? </p>

<p>There aren’t very many existing positive stereotypes of minorities. For us to ignore that and to view that as something that can be easily overcome seems a bit more than ignorant.</p>

<p>Yours? You bring up two ridiculous examples. Which barely serve your point and are in no way shape or form a measure of the hispanic experience. Two people are what you use to define a culture?</p>

<p>I use the thousands of examples I see in my everyday life. I teach SAT prep to underprivileged minority kids. That’s how I form some of my conclusions.</p>

<p>Yes I do know what strict scrutiny is, but I’m not arguing from a legal standpoint. Therefore, I don’t care about strict scrutiny. I’m arguing on moral principles. Legal principles are what they are. They are objective. </p>

<p>Your application serves us well. I just ask that either we no longer consider any subjective criteria to evaluate our process or we consider race in conjunction with socioeconomic status and geographical location… etc. Maybe I was misunderstood, but I never asked for strictly racial qualifications to help determine admission. I would want a whole application process where it is all reviewed in a certain context.</p>

<p>The complaint against wealthy URM’s is somewhat valid. They still have to overcome racial stereotypes among other things, but they have much less to deal with than socio-economically disadvantaged URMS.</p>

<p>Those who are socio-economically disadvantaged ORMS don’t face nearly the problems and attachments that others do. That’s why Race is important.</p>

<p>It’s only important in whole – in conjunction with other factors. Not by itself.</p>

[Student615]

<p>First of all, and this will likely fall on deaf ears, there’s no need for condescension. AA is a hotly-debated topic for a reason…both sides have important points. They’re rarely new points, and rarely without extensive support behind them. Anyone who thinks that someone who has stuck with this thread for 9pgs is simply someone who ‘doesn’t get’ the other side, or is someone whose view is likely to be changed within this thread, is kidding himself. Continue with the debate, but I can’t stand the ‘If you don’t agree with me, you must not get me, so I’ll get really rude and then repeat myself’ approach.</p>

<p>Secondly:</p>

<p>

In particular, I remember MIT’s [former?] Dean of Admissions said that they take every qualified underrepresented minority. That qualification level could be pretty low; perceived selectivity would be enhanced by competition among non-URMs for the remaining spots. Let’s say the strength of a student can be measured on a scale 1-100. Their bar could be set at 2; every URM student above a 2 would get in. And then they take only strongest non-URMs with the remaining spots.

</p>

<p>On a 1-100 scale of student quality, MIT’s bar for ‘qualified’ URM’s could be set at a 2? Offensiveness aside, such an unreasonable example contributes nothing to the discussion, even if it’s only given for purposes of illustration.</p>

[dontno]

<p>@ Bourne:</p>

<p>You actually believe that society’s racism can fully explain why whites and blacks who are in the exact same socioeconomic class score almost 250 points apart on the SAT? </p>

<p>That is a huge difference. It’s the difference between missing your state university’s honors college and going to Harvard!</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>Come now, I expect a Stanford student, regardless of his major, to be a little more respectful of the importance of concepts. “Effects” does not offend me. Its use is not derogatory, prejudiced, and so forth. It is simply the wrong word to use when talking about correlation. It’s confusing to use a causation term when you’re actually referring to correlation.</p>

<p>I am still interested in your source. Quite frankly, I’m unconvinced that race has any relationship with academic performance.</p>

<p>You say that “there aren’t very many existing positive stereotypes of minorities.” Did you ever stop and think that the policies you promote contribute to this?</p>

<p>Oh boy, “the” Hispanic experience? Here we go again with the original post of this thread. There is no “one” Hispanic experience. The two friends I mentioned live several hours apart by plane. One is Cuban, and the other is half Mexican. Two similarities are that they both live in majority Hispanic areas and are very comfortable with their Hispanic heritage. I don’t think my Miami friend’s experience is unique. It’s not surprising that in a majority Hispanic city, you’re not going to hear much anti-Hispanic rhetoric.</p>

<p>You teach SAT prep to poor minority students. That’s great, I think you’re doing a wonderful thing. My experience? I went to high school where the number of black students is roughly equal to the number of white students and where a plurality of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. What was your high school like?</p>

<p>I usually discuss affirmative action and diversity from a legal standpoint, which is why I frequently cite Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke. For a long time, I only knew of Bakke as the case that upheld affirmative action. When I actually read the opinion, I found out that so much of what pro-racial preference people prescribe is actually proscribed by law. The only moral viewpoint I use in this issue is that it is never right to judge people by race, regardless of how benign the intentions are.</p>

<p>Perhaps from your moral standpoint, race is no more pernicious than socioeconomics. From my moral standpoint, which I admit is heavily grounded in law, race is far more deadly than socioeconomics is. This is a matter of opinion, and we’ll just have to disagree.</p>

[Bourne]

<p>I guess you’re just assuming that Blacks and Hispanics are just consistently dumber across the board than Whites/Asians?</p>

<p>Yes dontno. I do believe that. I certainly think there must be a reason.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>

I guess you’re just assuming that Blacks and Hispanics are just consistently dumber across the board than Whites/Asians?

</p>

<p>And how did you conclude that? Because I wrote “Quite frankly, I’m unconvinced that race has any relationship with academic performance”? Not only is that poor critical reading, unbefitting of a Stanford student, but it’s also plain bad faith. My statement clearly shows that I am skeptical that race plays any role in academic performance. Yet, you somehow read that to mean I believe in the inferiority of certain races? I don’t believe in any such thing.</p>

<p>I am still interested in your source. I cite the studies and cases I mention, so I don’t think it’s too much to ask the same from you.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

You actually believe that society’s racism can fully explain why whites and blacks who are in the exact same socioeconomic class score almost 250 points apart on the SAT?

Yes dontno. I do believe that. I certainly think there must be a reason.

</p>

<p>You believe that racism can FULLY EXPLAIN the discrepancy? I don’t deny that racism is one component, but I think it is incredibly na</p>

[Agent_of_Sense]

<p>What is it with you and repeating the Stanford student thing?</p>