<p>
</p>
<p>So you admit that Jews were discriminated against in the 1920s at Harvard and that their being “very overrepresented” did not disprove the discrimination? When you make up 15% of the student body at Harvard but no where near 15% of the U.S. population, wouldn’t you say that’s “doing just fine in admissions to selective colleges”? (Harvard was not an outlier in having a “very overrepresented” Jewish student body.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. :)</p>
<p>Our nation is 25% URM and only 5% Asian American. Yet Asian Americans represent 15-30% of the student body at most top schools, if not more, while URMs typically represent between 10 and 20% of the student body at top schools. There’s no need to preach for exact mimicry of our nation’s racial makeup, but when the difference is so disproportionate (Asians overrepresented by 300% or more while URMs are underrepresented by 100% or more), it’s only logical that some of these schools would stop the overrepresentation at about 300%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that a quota?</p>
<p>I’m a Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, but is this considered an Over represented minority, like Asians, since they are similar? Is it better for me to leave it blank or mark this down? I ask this because in many college “stats” the races they show representing the school don’t include Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, which seems very strange to me…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If there is a space for it, mark it down. Are you a native Hawaiian? If so, do you live in Hawaii? I highly doubt that would work against you… in fact, it could work in your favor if the native Hawaiian culture (or culture of whatever Pacific island your from) played a significant role in your life. :)</p>
<p>Yes it’s true that colleges have certain quota on different races and yes Asians do need to get near perfect SAT or better to get into selective college. But it’s also true that most Asians that can afford to study at these colleges are more than privilege and should work hard to get into these colleges. I for one am privilege to take on so many co-curricular at a young age. On average, the races that are underrepresented in selective colleges, such as Hispanic or Black, do not have the same privileges as most Asians in the States do and I feel they deserve some slack. However, not all Black or Hispanic are under privileged; some of my African American friends are soo rich that they can drive race cars to school at an age of sixteen, so, I don’t think it’s fair that all underrepresented minority should be admitted to college easier.
Like I said most Asians are privilege but some are not. There are many Asians that can’t afford Princeton Review or such and the consequence is their disadvantage of not even having a shot (or really little) at these top school. So mainly the school should not be looking at race but rather the opportunities the student has and the work the student did to fulfill these opportunities in their short 18 years.
If I did not get into Harvard and another under privilege person with the same “stats” as me did, so be it, I did not work hard enough.</p>
<p>[The</a> Case Against Affirmative Action](<a href=“Page Not Found”>Page Not Found)</p>
<p>An article by a Stanford alumni that makes a compelling case against Affirmative Action. Certainly better than one I could’ve made.</p>
<p>Some key excerpts for people who don’t want to read the entire article.</p>
<p>“If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.”</p>
<p>“The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences – why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? – has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote “diversity.” This same push for “diversity” also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.”</p>
<p>“But if “diversity” were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption – that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives – is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.”</p>
<p>“The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing.”</p>
<p>Many thanks for the link, dreamormoney. I thought it was nice for the magazine to publish two opposing pieces on the issue; you don’t get more balanced than that.</p>
<p>I have never pretended to be “on the fence” or “ambivalent” about racial preferences. On the contrary, I am firmly opposed to them, so it doesn’t surprise me that I agreed with almost everything, if not everything, that Sacks and Thiel said. I’d like to address some of Ogletree, Jr.'s points since addressing S&T’s isn’t necessary.</p>
<p>Ogletree, Jr. states that affirmative action is a “small but significant way to compensate victims of slavery, Jim Crow laws, discrimination and immigration restrictions.” Really? Is that why at the Ivy Leagues, first- and second-generation blacks are “overrepresented” by over 300% relative to their population in the United States ([Source](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black]Source[/url]”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/02/01/black)</a>)? For a policy that purports to benefit the descendants of slaves, it sure doesn’t seem to be very focused on them. And what’s this whole “immigration restrictions” thing? To my knowledge, the only two groups that have ever been formally restricted entry to the United States are the Chinese (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and the Japanese (“Gentlemen’s” Agreement). Do they get racial preferences? Nope.</p>
<p>Ogletree, Jr. laments at the disparity between black PhD recipients and white PhD recipients in 1995–1,455 vs. 24,608. But as Thomas Sowell has written, “the heart of the problem, for both black students and black professors, is the unyielding fact that the numbers who have the credentials required for being at selective institutions are nowhere near the numbers required for fulfilling arbitrary quotas based on their “representation” in the population at large. As far back as 1969, those black professors with Ph.D.s from top universities and numerous publications were earning more than white professors of the same description. It was just that there were not very many black professors like this. The problem was not discrimination, but inadequate numbers with the requisite qualifications” (p. 162, Affirmative Action Around The World).</p>
<p>Next, Ogletree, Jr. creates a straw man of racial preference opponents’ supposedly supporting numbers only admissions. The funny thing is that Sacks and Thiel don’t state that in their piece, instead arguing that “the sole criterion…should be individual achievement – not just grades and test scores, of course, but a broad range of accomplishments, in athletics, music, student government, drama, school clubs and other extracurricular efforts.” In all my years of discussing this issue, it has never ceased to amaze me how highly educated people who support racial preferences opt to IGNORE you if you try to explain that you don’t support the international admissions system, you just don’t want race to be considered.</p>
<p>Ogletree, Jr. dismisses the stigmatization rationale against affirmative action and instead rhetorically asks, “Would they feel better and achieve more being excluded from a good education entirely?” This is nothing more than the “Yale or jail” argument, and if Ogletree, Jr. truly believes that unless you attend an institution at the level of Stanford, you won’t succeed, he has NO right to judge anyone who cries “reverse discrimination.” Sacks and Thiel get it write when they marvelously write that “When people do start to suspect the worst – that preferences have skewed the entire class – they are accused of the very racism that justifies these preferences. It is a strange cure that generates its own disease.”</p>
<p>Edit</p>
<p>Unfortunately, for a polarized issue like affirmative action, neither of these two articles is likely to “sway” anyone. In fact, they’d only “sway” those who were already aligned with one side.</p>
<p>Look at the details of today’s national ACT report </p>
<p>[2010</a> ACT National and State Scores](<a href=“http://www.act.org/news/data/10/index.html]2010”>http://www.act.org/news/data/10/index.html) </p>
<p>for some figures about college preparation by “race” and ethnicity. That’s food for thought on the issue of who is “overrepresented” at what colleges, and what the real social problem is (maybe not college admission policies, but high school academic programs) in building diverse college classes.</p>
<p>I look Indian but I have gray eyes… It’s because my paternal side is a bit Caribbean. I think they’re from Trinidad/Tobago. 1/4 of the population of the West Indies is Hindu so I’m not really sure if I am a URM or ORM.</p>
<p>URM applies generally to African American, Hispanic American, or Native American, and it can apply only if you are a US citizen or permanent US resident. Don’t know what you mean by “ORM.”</p>
<p>Yes, I am a US citizen and a US resident. ORM stands for Over-represented Minority.
In my case however, I am both URM and ORM (more ORM, but I dont want to admit it :D)</p>
<p>1) Ask your dad where the family is from so that you know once and for all.</p>
<p>2) Lots of people from India have gray/green/blue/fill-in-color-here eyes. They come in all skin colors too. India is a big place full of variety.</p>
<p>3) When you answer the race and ethnicity questions, YOU get to decide what to say. You can leave them all blank if you feel like it. </p>
<p>There are more important things for you to worry about, such as how you are going to pay for your education. Let this issue go.</p>
<p>For UIUC you should not be concerned about ORM being considered against you. It really is not considered. It does not even have the basis for the issue, e.g., it does not have any overabundence of asians applying.</p>
<p>Wow that is an interesting combo! I don’t know about college apps, but I really respect that. Most interesting. I wish you good luck in college.</p>
<p>Don’t rely on your ethnic background. Its mostly about the fit and a LOT of luck.
Just do what you have to do.</p>
<p>bumpppppppppppidy bump</p>
<p>Dude, seriously, you’re Indian! :)</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, those who choose not to report their race due to fear of being considered an ORM should not be admitted in the first place. It is understandable if a small number simply cannot identify with a race, or for whatever reason find it against their beliefs, but the percentages listed are ridiculous in such a viewpoint. There is almost never a guarantee for applicants who apply to top colleges, and every little thing counts, but they should not be afraid of who they are. </p>
<p>And fishyfishy…you’re Indian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t they be admitted? Did they do anything wrong?</p>
<p>Given completely equal credentials for college, a multi-racial or ethnic candidate will get the admissions offer while the white applicant will not. It is in the best interest for white applicants to leave the race question blank, which will later be reported as “unknown”. In the interest of building an ethnically-diverse student body, which is considered more interesting and desirable for class discussions, opinions, etc., the ethnic card comes into play. This is particularly true if you are applying from a state that is ethnically diverse. For instance, if the University of Maine wants to create a diverse environment, they will have to look for candidates from NY, NJ, Va., etc. Not only does this satisfy their diversity requirements, but it counts towards their out-of-state quota as well. This the reality of the world, unfortunately. Don’t believe me? If you owned an engineering firm, and had 2 equally qualified candidates in front of you, a male and female, who would you hire? Probably the female, because they come across your desk few-and-far-between and it makes you look like an Equal Opportunity Employer. </p>
<p>While state schools are not allowed to use the race card in the admissions process, private institutions are.</p>