<p>“If they truly had an advantage in admissions, then they would be accepted at a rate much greater than the overall acceptance rate of the college. As Oregon’s acceptance rate was 8% or less, I do not really think that my location helped me. This is likewise supported by my Princeton rejection - had my state or location played any role in the decision, I would not have been rejected (several reasons support this.) Moreover, I can attest, just by looking at the origins of students from my residential college, that states with a large of number of excellent applicants - Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, and so forth - are much better represented than other states. Obviously I don’t know the individual admissions rates for each state, and can’t know the confounding factors such as applicant quality, but I can say that it doesn’t seem to be as competitive to get in from these states as you are saying it is.”</p>
<p>Maybe on the whole, Oregon’s applicants are weaker than other applicants just as from what I’ve heard, applicants from places like NYC, the Boston and D.C. areas tend to be much stronger than many people in the admissions pool. Perhaps people from Oregon were accepted who wouldn’t have been accepted if they had been applying from Boston, NYC or places like Alexandria, Va. or Potomac, Md. </p>
<p>Maybe many rejected students from states like New Jersey would have been accepted if they had applied from Oregon. </p>
<p>"This is likewise supported by my Princeton rejection - had my state or location played any role in the decision, I would not have been rejected (several reasons support this.) "</p>
<p>There’s no way that you could have the inside knowledge to know such info.</p>
<p>“And as a note, Yale does not have any issue attracting applicants from the Pacific Northwest, at least not in Oregon. Its interesting that Harvard would - or maybe Harvard is just bemoaning the fact that they don’t get a bunch of underqualified instant rejects from the Pacific Northwest.”</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that Yale gets many such applicants from the Pacific Northwest?</p>
<p>You are just making arbitrary tiers to justify your position. The whole concept of “qualified” that people who are opposed to AA try to set is dumb. Colleges, don’t admit anyone who is not qualified. After a certain point it doesn’t matter, you know that, I know that, and admissions officers know that. A 2200 is just as good as a 2400, and being number 5 is just as good as being number 1. So noone is “more qualified” people are just qualified and from that colleges pick. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Likewise what if 150 out of the 200 from Oregon had no business applying. We both know that statement is stupid, people who apply to Yale tend to be people who might actually have a shot at Yale so it is dumb to just say that a siginificant number of people had no business applying. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On this you are definitely wrong. A significant portion of applicants get in because they are hooked in some way. They go to the right school, know the right people, legacy, athlete, or minority. So the schools acceptance rate accounts for this fact. So the fact that Oregon has the same acceptance rate indicates that they are getting a boost based on location. Otherwise non-hooked applicants get in at a lesser rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By this logic my race would not have mattered at Princeton or Harvard since I was rejected. I saw on the boards of decisions minorities who had lesser stats than I and lesser ECs get into these same schools, so does it mean race doesn’t help at Princeton or Harvard? You would say no, even though these schools reject plenty of top notch minorities like myself and take lesser “objective” minorities. Why? Because some things matter more than stats, and all the whiners about Affirmative action are simply looking for a way to console themselves. As much as you might not want to admit it, you were jealous of your friend that is why you harbored those negative feelings. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that logic would entail that more people in a region would apply to the same school. As far as the Connecticut acceptance you can bet that a large number of them went to Choate or Hotchkiss because those schools are feeder schools to Yale and why more people from CT get in. That is not merit, so where is your indignation? </p>
<p>The entire point of this whining about Affirmative Action boils down to two things: jealous and racism. People are jealous that these students got accepted to these schools, and are resentful of the fact that for once being a minority is actually a good thin as opposed to the lessons people learn throughout their life about white being better.</p>
<p>I’ve never taken the stand that AA should be used to ensure that the population in our colleges and elite institutions mimic the racial distribution of the U.S. population in any given year, because I believe this sets up a scenario that veers too dangerously close to the idea of quotas.</p>
<p>I believe colleges should strive to admit as many academically strong black applicants from as many disparate backgrounds as possible, a number which will necessarily vary from admissions cycle to admissions cycle. Admission of some of these students will exemplify what may be classically defined as AA, in that in many instances, their background and economic circumstances are reflected in test scores and GPAs that occupy the lower percentiles of the applicant pool. Some of them also (as exemplified by many young black CCers) will be middle class to affluent students whose test scores and GPA will occupy the 50th percentile or higher. I believe this is especially important in helping to build and maintain a population of African Americans that are educated and upwardly mobile. I believe the presence of such students on campus adds just as much vibrancy to the over all campus community as the presence of white students from various backgrounds, second generation Asian students or international students from around the world.</p>
<p>I also believe that, given the fact that the Hispanic population of The United States has surpassed that of the AfAm population for a number of years, and given the growing educational and economic disparities being suffered by much of this population, that it’s very important to admit as many qualified Hispanic students as possible. Their presence also represents a compelling interest to the campus community, and should be valued just as highly. There again, I’m against any rigidly set numerical quota for their admission, as I’m against any kind of plug-in formula for crafting a vibrant college community. College admission is ultimately an art, an art of, yes, social engineering, whose goal is to contribute to the sending forth into the world, a wiser, better educated, and more socially aware adult.</p>
<p>I think the point is that there’s a statistically significant difference between 2400 and 2200. I don’t think that difference should have a whole lot of weight, but it’s fair to say there is a difference.</p>
<p>Back to the original subject. One black man’s experience of driving while black…</p>
<p>"<br>
Driving Lesson
Why Me? I’m Afraid I Know
By Darryl Fears</p>
<p>Sunday, November 14, 1999; Page B01</p>
<p>It was the state trooper’s eyes that worried me most. They were wide and filled with fear.</p>
<p>He advanced on my car with an awkward gait, like a man walking on a ledge: one hand on the black handle of his holstered gun, the other held out beside him, flat and steady. He was balancing himself, I thought with a sudden chill, so he’d be ready if he needed to draw his weapon and shoot.</p>
<p>I was sure this was no ordinary traffic stop. I couldn’t have been going more than a couple of miles over the limit when the trooper signaled me to pull over on I-70 East near Salina, Kan. I’ve been stopped for speeding before, and I know what the stride of a confident police officer looks like. Not like this. Not like a tightly wound commando. That’s why I’m convinced that I was pulled over because I am black.</p>
<p>Long before setting out to drive from Los Angeles to D.C. for a new job at The Washington Post, I worried about being stopped. …</p>
<p>As a reporter who had covered race and ethnicity, I’d read and heard many stories about racial profiling, about black men who were choked, shot, even killed by jittery cops who target minorities on the false assumption that we are all automatically suspect…</p>
<p>So, as white drivers sped by me on that clear blue early September morning, in sport utility vehicles, campers and cars fitted with bike racks, I gripped my steering wheel and froze.</p>
<p>“You know why I stopped you?” the Kansas state trooper asked when he stood, finally, at my door. He was tall, white, almost fatherly. I wanted to know his name, and I found it on his shirt pocket: K. Rourke.</p>
<p>“You were a bit over the speed limit when you passed me,” he said. But that wasn’t the only reason he gave for pulling me over: “You didn’t signal when you changed lanes.”</p>
<p>Even as many white Americans are beyond tired of hearing about it, and beyond resentful toward AfAms who speak of “Driving While Black”, the phenomenon continues to be what it is. Virtually every black male will eventually receive parental admonishment about how to engage law with the view toward preservation of life and limb. It’s because of a phenomenon that is not only historical, but ongoing. It is not a “myth”.</p>
<p>I do not disagree with your position on quotas. However, when it comes to college admissions, affirmative action is a mismoner since we know that affirmative action extends beyond race as it includes gender affirmative action (as in the programs for women-owned businesses.) In the context of education, affirmative actions is meant to help URMs or UNDER-represented minorities. With or without quotas, the definition of being under- or over-represented intimates the existence of a ratio. And this ratio is one of size of the minority over the entire population. </p>
<p>Is it that farfetched to think that the day the changes in our population distribution cause the african-american population to “graduate” past their URM status --just as the asian-americans did-- might be the day the AA programs lose their most vocal supporters and stop being seen as meritorous as they are today?</p>
<p>Well, I think myself justified in doubting that you are about to attend any school at all after seeing you display such ignorance about some of the most basic aspects and requirements of the American political process. You apparently have little idea what it takes to run a campaign, the millions of dollars one must raise, the tens of thousands of people one must motivate to dedicate large portions of their lives simply to get one elected to office, not to mention what it takes to motivate millions of people to leave their homes, go to the polls, and then push the button on one’s behalf. Only a relative few people in human history have ever been able to accomplish it. That Obama has achieved this makes him one of the most exceptional people in history. He may not be as exceptional as Alex the Great, or Confucius, and he may not yet be as exceptional at the American Presidency as Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson, but when we look at all of the souls who have ever existed on our planet, and separate from them the men and women who have been most exceptional, Obama is certainly in the exceptional class, along with Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon and the other American presidents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm. I don’t really know how to respond to such vigorous nonsense. It does not matter how people respond to Obama if he is a failure. The fact is, he was able to marshal forth their honor, by the millions, so that now he has The Button at the tip of his finger. It is a stunning achievement in human history, especially since no one who has ever looked like him has ever been able to marshal forth honor in such magnitude. The whole world now looks to him, and wants to know his thoughts. Few people in human history have ever been able to acquire that sort of stature. This alone makes him one of the most exceptional people in history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course when one speaks of military might, one tends to have power and innovation in mind. So your dismissal of America’s military greatness here is powerless. Military greatness does not come from military power, as you imply here. Military greatness is military power itself, power here being not limited merely to having the ability to cause the largest explosion, but also including the technology and logistics to deploy systems most effectively. Obama now sits as the Chief Executive Officer of the greatest military that has ever existed in human history. That alone makes him one of the most exceptional people in history.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Possibly. But he still would not lose the characteristic of being one of the most exceptional people in human history, unless majorities of humans somehow are then able to lead the world’s only superpower. I am being sincere when I say you are obviously not thinking here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(Lawd hep me!) And becoming leader of the world’s foremost superpower is a most exceptional thing for our time. Doing this as a black guy, in view of history, is exceptional indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One might argue that Alex and Albert are more exceptional than Obama. I would certainly be inclined to agree with this. But I think arguing against the obvious truth that Obama is one of the most exceptional people in all of history is just being ignorant – and on purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. He has already made his place as an exceptional individual. That is why the world listens to him more than it listens to you or me. He is exceptional among us. Indeed, in all of history few humans have ever been able to garner his sort of power and respect, and arguing against this obvious fact is plainly ridiculous.</p>
<p>The overarching point I wish to remind us of here is that Obama’s high school stats, by his own admission, were low. But while his stats were not the strongest, he is obviously one of the most exceptional people on earth, indeed in the history of the earth. Schools like Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford tend to recognize these traits in students, and they see that stats do not even come close to pointing them out. The reason Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have so many outstanding leaders as alumnae, is that they select high-fliers, and not necessarily high scorers. Scores are important, it seems to me. High fliers tend to score well because they are high fliers. But scores are not as significant as whiners wish them to be, and thank God for this because some lower scorers fly just as high as anyone else. Apparently the schools are quite good at discovering who these are.</p>
<p>Why, then, are more kids from these areas accepted? We need detailed percentages before this can proceed any further. My initial point stands, though. I was not given a major boost by virtue of my residence in Oregon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I need nothing more than logic to know such info.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all.</p>
<p>
[quote=Dbate earlier]
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. It just sounds like people want to complain and insult other people. As much as people go on about fairness and the like it is really jealous. No one really cares about fairness, they really only care about them. You got into Yale, I bet there were tons of kids who were more “qualified” than you who got rejected. Do you think that is fair?
[quote]
</p>
<p>Consistency? At any rate, TCBH’s response to you is what I am trying to get at.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s the case (even though we know its not), then some Oregonian cities still have a lower acceptance rate than Houston does. I’m not sure what this tangent is actually solving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You failed to account for hooked applicants within the Oregonian applicant pool. Four of the 16 accepted were athletes, and I believe one more was a minority. That makes 5 “hooked” acceptances. For the non-hooked, then, it was 11 out of 190-200, or more, which is lower than the overall admissions rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d argue you either appeared arrogant to the adcoms, or you were a rare exception in which AA wasn’t weighed. I’ll admit I was jealous of him - jealous that he had those opportunities and that unnecessary boost in light of his opportunities. I’m sure you felt the same thing when you saw others sweeping HYP and you only getting one of them.</p>
<p>And a question - how does it make you feel (beyond jealousy) when you get rejected and see applicants with test scores 250 points beneath yours getting accepted (or 3-4 points on the ACT, since you did better on that)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For Connecticut, maybe. I really dislike the concept of feeder schools, as they are a vestige of the past. What about Maryland, though? The same explanation does not apply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jealousy is natural, especially when you see others who weren’t terribly disadvantaged getting boosts in the process they don’t need. Your assertion about racism is a joke - it’s not about racism, its about a sense of fairness. Quite simply stated, African-Americans who don’t need a boost shouldn’t receive one, just as white who don’t shouldn’t either. And being told that white is a good thing? Is this 1960? I’ve never been taught that, ever. Don’t make such an egregiously inaccurate assumption.</p>
<p>As a general note to both you and Northstarmom, your initial assertion was that being in Oregon gave me a significant boost myself in getting accepted at Yale. You havent said anything suggesting that is true yet. You cant expect me to give hard evidence proving the contrary while providing none yourself. The burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>And finally…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it does not necessarily mean that they were the beneficiary of AA (although Id believe they were to some extent, as race is factored constantly). However, given the circumstances, one is entirely justified in ascribing such policies to the students acceptance. Do you see the nuance of the argument?</p>
<p>I am not saying black students arent qualified, and not that they dont deserve to get in should race be considered. I am just saying that looking honestly at current admissions policies, its often fair to attribute the level of success of many minority applicants to their race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me such diversity would be achieved through analyzing the socioeconomic background of the applicant, rather than their race. Youll still get African-Americans, both rich and poor, but youll also get poorer whites and Asians who have a reduced chance because of the current policies. Perhaps you think that culture is dependent on race, but this is only true to some extent, and if anything, less of one than socioeconomic condition. Why not, then, emphasize the latter?</p>
<p>You say that it is positive that students come from a variety of backgrounds, ethnicities, and races. Thats lovely, but the latter two are weighed much too heavily.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is fine, and recognize how this influences education, especially because so much undergraduate collegiate education is extracurricular interaction. I just think that elite schools are misapplying this subjective review of applicants in regards to race and socioeconomic background. As noted, they pay much more attention to race than to socioeconomic background, and I dont think this is fair or conducive to maximizing the perspectives on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Im not. I would love for there to be black students on campus, but I would like them evaluated against the applicant pool with little or no consideration to race. They will still be accepted and attend the institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Ive mentioned multiple times, I prefer ignoring race when I can. If there were no qualified white students but me, and my minority classmates were not insular or racist, I would have no problem with it. Considering only idealism sees a complete disavowal of racial considerations, though, I would say in practice I prefer some level of diversity in the college. I just think this diversity should be acheived through fairer means than it currently is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So subtle your accusations of racism, but once discovered, so obvious. Try to move beyond petty, unproductive, and unwarranted name-calling, if it is so possible for you.</p>
<p>With that said, I am not bothered in principle by students who are in the 25th percentile, as basic logic dictates someone has to fill these spots. I would like to see the standards for this 25th percentile raised, though. While I do recognize that athletes (the majority of these white students in the 25th percentile) cant practically be removed, I dont necessarily like it. Nor, on that note, do I see why youd endeavor to make such an assumption without any real support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im sure it does. Im likewise sure that if I really wanted to and tried to, I could eventually be on the Yale admissions committee. Does that scare you, knowing my bigotry would be manifest in five years of Yale admissions decisions? Seriously, it is quite obvious you tried to sneak an insult in predicated on your own misunderstanding of my posts or apparant inability to read them, and assumption derived from specious (at best) reasoning. Just stop; it isnt helping your cause in the slightest.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, Ill respond to you in the morning. I dont think Id do your post justice with my current mental fatigue. Its tiring trying to argue against four obdurate people simultaneously.</p>
<p>“Why, then, are more kids from these areas accepted? We need detailed percentages before this can proceed any further. My initial point stands, though. I was not given a major boost by virtue of my residence in Oregon.”</p>
<p>You don’t know how much your Oregon residence helped you. That info simply isn’t available because you aren’t privy to the inner workings of the admissions committee. For all you know, even though your stats were excellent, the admissions committee may have been unimpressed by other aspects of your application such as your essays, ECs, or recommendations, and what may have boosted you in was being from Oregon.</p>
<p>Most applicants to places like Yale qualify for admission. What can make people stand out and be admitted are things like state of residence, ethnicity, passions, religion, sexual orientation, and other things that can tip students in. But things like that can wake the living, not raise the dead. It’s not likely that any individual factor --including state of residency or race – is going to be a major boost that pushes someone in who admissions officers consider to be near the bottom of the pool.</p>
<p>So, more than likely, you’re right that being from Oregon wasn’t a major boost for you. However, that’s also true of race for other students. </p>
<p>“ith that said, I am not bothered in principle by students who are in the 25th percentile, as basic logic dictates someone has to fill these spots. I would like to see the standards for this 25th percentile raised,”</p>
<p>Fine for you to want to have that done. Many of us have wishes for things that are in other people’s hands.</p>
<p>Not good, however, if you somehow think that by changing what scores they find acceptable, top universities will do an even better job of creating the kind of student bodies that they want. Top college administrators are getting what they want in a student body or else they’d change their selection criteria.</p>
<p>To quote that prescient social scientist Rodney King: Can’t we all get along?</p>
<p>Will it ever be possible to say that it may be an innate quirk of humanity to have an instantaneous reaction to a person based on a PERCEPTION of his/her race/social position/gender orientation/attractiveness-relative-to-self but that it is in our interest to overcome or disregard the messages that pass through the Cro-Magnon skull at that point and regard each person with unique interest?</p>
<p>For instance, will it ever be possible for ethnic whites to reject this assumption:
– “because he’s black” he has every advantage
Will it ever be possible for ethnic blacks to reject this assumption:
– “because I’m black” I am going to be disrespected</p>
<p>Can we take down that attitudinal Berlin Wall? Ever?</p>
<p>Furthering my point about innate bias, and because you all took the discussion to college admissions – think about your reactions when you tour college campuses. Do you make assumptions based on what you see? If you see a lot of Asian students, do you have the tiny notion that “wow, this school must be hard” “smart students go here”, etc. If you are a student taking an SAT in an unfamiliar setting, and you are surrounded by Asian students, do you think “my score is gonna be crappy compared to theirs”, and who knows, self-fulfilling prophecy may diminish your performance.</p>
<p>Great example, Northstarmom:
</p>
<p>If I am going for a job interview, and sitting in the waiting area are a lot of 20-year-olds, I might think “there is no way they will hire me over all these youngsters”, and yet, my experience might be what the company is looking for, but my confidence will be diminished during the interview.</p>
<p>If I walk into a department meeting and I am the only woman in a roomful of men, I might think “I am going to get interrupted every time I open my mouth”, guess what, it really happens. (Check it out for yourself – when news programs have a woman on the panel, the men interrupt her and she shuts up, if the men interrupt each other the original speaker keeps on talking louder!) I don’t know if this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there’s a postgraduate thesis in there somewhere.</p>
<p>My basic point is – we all have biases that don’t help us or anyone else. Can it be possible to banish the “us vs. them” mentality, no matter what your ethnicity? It is impractical in an evolutionary sense, I think that one day our descendants will all look like Tiger Woods, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing (I am paper-white, BTW).</p>
<p>In terms of Affirmative Action, I think it’s necessary but imperfect. There needs to be a way to ensure representation on college campuses, why, because it’s important for this country. Sotomayor is an important example for Latinas. Obama is an important example for black or mixed-race, or multi-racial, families. I remember hearing Alice Walker, author of “The Color Purple”, say that after attending a lecture given by a famous black woman writer, she felt she had “permission to write.” This is what Affirmative Action offers: the promise of examples of success no matter what your ethnicity – permission to succeed. If it means using different criteria for different candidates, I have no problem with that.</p>
<p>I don’t know, this is just my opinion anyway.</p>
<p>and p.s., I really don’t think it’s helpful to use terms like “stupid” “dumb” “yadda yadda yadda”, and “full of nonsense” etc. in response to others. It just makes people defensive and angry.</p>
<p>"For instance, will it ever be possible for ethnic whites to reject this assumption:
– “because he’s black” he has every advantage
Will it ever be possible for ethnic blacks to reject this assumption:
– “because I’m black” I am going to be disrespected</p>
<p>Can we take down that attitudinal Berlin Wall? Ever?"</p>
<p>These assumptions get discussed in different ways, though, because “advantage” is something tangible that can weighed based on facts, i.e. compare Student A who comes from a school that offers 20 AP’s and athletic boosters organization that raises $2mil/year to Student B comes from a school with a 40% dropout rate and 5 spectators at the school basketball games. Student B gets into Harvard with lower stats than student A. Discussion ensues:</p>
<p>Student A: BooHoo! You were given an advantage.
Student B: I’m sorry, but you’ve had advantages your whole life. You have no idea.
Chorus: Grow up student A!</p>
<p>Compare this to the discussion about “disrespect”
Person A: You don’t respect me because I’m [insert race].
Person B: Actually, I wasn’t thinking about your race one way or the other.
Person A: Yes you were.
Person B: No, I wasn’t.
Person A: Yes you were. Studies show you were, even though you think you weren’t.
Person B: But I wasn’t.
Person A: Were.
etc…</p>
<p>The second scenario is obviously less likely to be resolved.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting point … My D has been taking ACT / SAT prep classes over the summer, and she is one of maybe 2-3 white students in the class. Every other student is Asian (either Far / Southeast Asian or Indian subcontinent). My S has been taking a residential summer program at an elite u and again, the preponderance of Asian students has been overwhelming and clearly noticeable even to a casual observer. Some of the behavior of the parents has been stereotypical (pushing their students to take classes in sciences when the children are interested in the arts, being very punitive if straight A’s aren’t achieved, etc.). I have to be honest, it does reinforce some stereotypes for me.</p>
<p>I think the whole beer thing itself has its own subtext. As if they all “should” try to be the Common Man who likes beer. Personally I wanted someone to say that he preferred some nice bottle of wine, but that would be perceived as “uppity” / putting on airs - regardless of whether it was Gates, Obama or Crowley.</p>
<p>I’m confused, pizzagirl. Do those observations reinforce your stereotypes of Asians, or your stereotypes of people-who-sign-up-their-kids-for-academic-coaching? I would image the second group contains only a small subset of the first group.</p>