<p>Being gay is everyway as much a part of who you are as being black, brown eyed, etc. are</p>
<p>I think if you are going by affirmative action - including orientation is fitting the idea.</p>
<p>That doesn’t make it right per se. But thats getting to the argument behind affirmative action itself.</p>
<p>Mini notes in response to post 100,“They offer an example (a very RARE example I might add) to other Black and minority students,”</p>
<p>Response: Sadly Mini, this isn’t as rare as you would think. There are a number of kids from our well-to-do high school who are members of under represented minorities URM) and have successful parents. Many of them get into top schools and/or are given scholarship offers that their white counterparts can’t seem to get. It galls me that colleges are pushing for ethnic or recial diversity without giving consideration to economic diversity of the URM.</p>
<p>I have to admit that I feel more comfortable with Yale’s approach to affirmative action, create programs that will let you know that gays are taken seriously, than just creating a check box on an application form.</p>
<p>Where did that idea that there is to be a check box on an application form come from? I’ve seen no such suggestion, and no such proposal.</p>
<p>Hey, you won’t find me arguing against programs to expand economic diversity at prestige colleges. (I have probably spent more time on this list debunking such so-called commitments from top colleges than anyone else on this list, and I’ve provided the data to back it up.) But that in no way changes the fact that well-to-do minorities do offer a particular, and unique kind of diversity to a college or university. </p>
<p>Princeton’s policy of admitting low-income African-Americans in the early 70s was pretty much a failure, it is believed, precisely because there were no role models of what successful Black students and families looked like. That there are now fewer African-Americans at Princeton than there were then, and MANY fewer poor ones, doesn’t change that reality.</p>
<p>“Meanwhile, I live in a region with some really hurting rural, predominantly white, high schools. They have cut languages, music, AP courses, you name it. Where are the scholarships for those kids?”"</p>
<p>That’s a bigger issue - where is the HIGH SCHOOL for these kids? It’s no great national tragedy if they don’t end up at prestige colleges; it is a tragedy if they can’t get a decent education in their home communities, and then can’t afford a good education at a good state university. That’s much, much important than who happens to get into Middlebury.</p>
<p>I agree with everything Mini said. Where did this check off box come from? And many schools do give a tip for kids who come from rural areas. That’s been well established. They don’t have a checkoff box for that, or for kids who come from blue collar, lower middle class towns, but I think there’s something of a tip for that, too. I highly, highly doubt that Midd’s app will have a gay checkoff box.</p>
<p>OTOH, like Mini says, what’s important is that everyone get a decent HS eduacation, and be prepared and finaincially able to enter and graduate from a good enough college. The college students I work with, who average somewhere in the low 800s for SATs, and are almost all low income, are much more an issue to me than this is.</p>
<p>Playing devil’s advocate:</p>
<p>Maybe they’re intentionally signalling the absolutely reverse message. For instance, if they were worried that their traditional core of smart preppy jocks are steering more to Dartmouth and Williams, or wherever. Because Middlebury is good at these 'woos majors like English and languages.</p>
<p>So to assure these kids don’t worry, we’re still Marlboro men here, they’re advertising that they actually need to recruit gay kids because so few would come of their own devices.</p>
<p>Just kidding (mostly)…</p>
<p>Upon hearing the news about Middlebury, an insightful curmudgeon friend said “…that’s mighty white of them.”</p>
<p>Middlebury uses the common application. I’m pretty sure there won’t be any boxes to check. Students will have an opportunity to express themselves in their essays and in listing their ECs. And they’re not only looking for openly gay students, but also students who are tolerant and openminded. I think that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL! Maybe they could use this as a recruiting slogan.</p>
<p>mini - they didn’t ask me, but they didn’t ask you, either. So why respond this way rather than engage in a reasoned form of debate? It really doesn’t further your position and evinces a morally superior oppositional view that doesn’t necessarily bring about the result to sought to be obtained. Look, I think you and I agree that universities, like other institutions, ought to be open and dedicated to treating people fairly and justly who are different than the majority - and this includes gay people. But what I do not understand how granting a preference to people based on sexual orientation furthers that goal, other than somehow it wispily makes “a statement”. The most accepting environment would be on that seeks students for their ability to make significant contributions to a university, and if those that can do that just happen to be gay, then fine - the university (and the students) ought to accept them for who they are. In any event, I am surprised at the tone of your response - I was a reasonably conservative law review editor at one of the country’s top 5 law schools 20 years ago, and being a lost conservative in a sea of liberalism, still found most of my liberal colleagues capable of debating without sophmoric comments as “they didn’t ask you”. Such statements only invite questions of a lack of intellectual and analytic depth, irrespective of what the the truth may be.</p>
<p>Sorry, if that came across too strong. But the point is they don’t undertake these efforts without looking at their data in depth, exploring issues in their campus life, thinking strategically about their future, talking with alumni, and undertaking research - all things that you - and I - haven’t been able to do. They didn’t just make it up on the spur of the moment.</p>
<p>I think we need to give them more credit than that. They know (or at least they think they know) what they are doing, and are in a better position to make that judgment than you or I. You might find their judgment questionable (as might I) - but that would be merely a matter of opinion unsupported by the data that they (and not we) might have at their disposal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is this simple, rational and equitable philosophy so hard for colleges to understand or embrace?</p>
<p>That simple, rational, and equitable philosophy won’t get them any headlines or win praise from advocacy groups.</p>
<p>^^^sad but true.</p>
<p>I know little about Middlebury other than it is in one of those" small, rural , * snowy*white" states. Oh and a friend learned Nordic skiing there, it sounds quite beautiful.</p>
<p>My impression is that some schools are trying to find a niche by opening up admission/applications, to more than they perhaps targeted in the past.</p>
<p>By strategies like not requiring SAT/ACT scores and by saying they would like to have more applicants who aren’t the typical right out of Abercrombie prepster mode that perhaps they have had previous.</p>
<p>The UW in Seattle is quite smug for example about how they have gotten more minority applicants/students by lessening emphasis on test scores( personally I think admitting more students than you have room for* 3 students in a room 11x16 and that is for those who are lucky enough to get a room*- and then complaining they don’t get enough money from the state is pretty stinky- the state could also fund more seats in other state schools, if it wasn’t for the elephant in the room who always has their trunk in the piggy jar)</p>
<p>In my experience, more students grow up in cities or at least suburbs and aren’t really interested in attending a rural college. ( and the students who * did * grow up in a rural area, want to get * out* )</p>
<p>I also think it is good to state out loud that gays are welcome-
but schools also give all sorts of incentives to try and get people to apply
they have pizza parties at high schools- advertise their winning record in football-redesign dorm rooms so they are nicer than at home .
Perhaps giving a tip, could be considered overstating it a bit- and maybe that will even lessen applicants in some categories ?</p>
<p>I think they are pretty smart- its apparently about Marketing with a Big M, and they have certainly gotten people to talk about them, whereas generally those schools way off to the upper right arent’ mentioned that much on CC any way. In a positive manner more or less as well. ( without costing them money as advertising their great aid packages for lower income students would)</p>
<p>but I don’t buy the gay=artsy argument. How does giving a “tip” to gay candidates who are not involved in the arts (ie: the gay pre-med or the gay pre-law applicant) advance Midd’s cause? What if the artsy gay applicant’s would rather be in larger, metro areas (more arts, more gays) than rural VT - - then Midd will have a critical mass on non-artsy gays (which is fine). </p>
<p>And Mini - - admitting gays to increase the pool of artists is very diff than affirm action for racial or economic diversity. With the black face comes a black experience - - believe me, a middles class or affluent black is quite diff than its White counterparts. Likewise, the kids w/ the empty pockes bring a diff experience (even if their parents are highly educated artsy types) than their affluent classmates. Admitting a gay student get you a diff perspective (a gay perspective), but not necessarily an artist’s perspective.</p>
<p>“What Middlebury wants to do is have a more diverse population. Hey, having a college mirror the world is not a bad thing, you know”</p>
<p>Know many colleges that mirror the “real” world when it comes to population distribution, political leanings, and faculty? Good luck finding them! </p>
<p>The only questions are how far left do they lean and how PC-infested they truly are. Higher education is NOTHING like the real world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL! I find the whole tip for gays so silly. Does the college really think swarms of aristic & bohemian gays will be heading to New England? Really, most gays aren’t like Carson on Queer Eye of the costumed marchers in the Greenwich Village Halloween parade. Most live amongst us, leading ordinary suburban lifestyles. So what special contribution will being gay make to any university?</p>
<p>“And Mini - - admitting gays to increase the pool of artists is very diff than affirm action for racial or economic diversity. With the black face comes a black experience - - believe me, a middles class or affluent black is quite diff than its White counterparts. Likewise, the kids w/ the empty pockes bring a diff experience (even if their parents are highly educated artsy types) than their affluent classmates. Admitting a gay student get you a diff perspective (a gay perspective), but not necessarily an artist’s perspective.”</p>
<p>Oh, fair enough. The Middlebury admissions officer said they brought a “unique perspective”, and implied that having that perspective around more widely would be good for the entire student body (not just the very few gay students they believed they have.) I don’t see gay students flocking to Middlebury in any case, but they want to ensure they have a critical mass so that this “unique perspective” is available to all students.</p>
<p>That it happens to increase the pool of “culture creatives” may just be a side benefit (though one with which Middlebury is obviously concerned.)</p>
<p>I just don’t see this is as much of a big deal - certainly less than the tips for white, well-heeled legacies.</p>
<p>Judging from the languages used here by some, restrainted as they may have been or otherwise, many here obviously have a lot to learn about what it takes to be tolerant.</p>