"Race" in College Admissions FAQ & Discussion 4

[tokenadult]

<p>

my girlfriend is first generation from South America and chose not to put down her race in any of her admissions, yet still managed a full ride scholarship from multiple top schools.

</p>

<p>Congratulations to her.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

That said, my girlfriend is first generation from South America and chose not to put down her race in any of her admissions, yet still managed a full ride scholarship from multiple top schools.

Congrats to her, but all this proves is that URMs are not 100% hopeless without the benefits of the race boost, a conclusion that I hope many people have already made.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

That said, my girlfriend is first generation from South America and chose not to put down her race in any of her admissions, yet still managed a full ride scholarship from multiple top schools.

</p>

<p>This is not very meaningful unless she has an Anglo-Saxon surname, is studying typically female subjects (Romance Languages at Yale, not mechanical engineering at MIT), is applying from an affluent non-URM high school, cannot have her background discerned through a picture or an interview (which competitive scholarships require), none of her essays and recommendations disclose that background, and the schools offering scholarships didn’t have her on a minority recruiting list based on test scores. In other words, it could be at best an ineffectual gesture of principle and at worst, posturing; making the gesture knowing that it doesn’t jeopardize the benefits.</p>

[chaosakita]

<p>

And isn’t it odd that Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, all countries located on islands in the Pacific Ocean, don’t include many inhabitants who would be classified as “Pacific Islanders”?

</p>

<p>That’s not what “Pacific Islander” means. It means people who live farther out in the Pacific, like people in Melanesia or Kiribati.</p>

<p>

But if a few do it, and only a few apply to those colleges in the first place, how do we know the relative percentages of people that don’t indicate their race?

</p>

<p>They don’t, but as most of the applicants are ORMs (how are whites a “minority” in this case), most of the unknowns are ORMs too, so they they are treated as such.</p>

<p>

That said, my girlfriend is first generation from South America and chose not to put down her race in any of her admissions, yet still managed a full ride scholarship from multiple top schools.

</p>

<p>Wow, non-minorities can get those too?</p>

<p>But seriously, congratulations to her.</p>

[u_ername]

<p>

You said ONLY ORMs pick that option. I am not an ORM. Therefore, wrong.

</p>

<p>Okay, I’m wrong. Happy? Instead of looking at the wording I’ve picked, you can actually look into the meaning. Just because there are a few URMs who chose that option doesn’t mean anything.</p>

<p>It’s like we have the murder suspects (ORMs), and the non-suspects (URMs). Then we have the unclear section where most of the people were at the crime scene, and we don’t know which ones weren’t. </p>

<p>Are you going to let them all off because some of them are not guilty? Or are you going to question all of them?</p>

[lockn]

<p>

This is not very meaningful unless she has an Anglo-Saxon surname, is studying typically female subjects (Romance Languages at Yale, not mechanical engineering at MIT), is applying from an affluent non-URM high school, cannot have her background discerned through a picture or an interview (which competitive scholarships require), none of her essays and recommendations disclose that background, and the schools offering scholarships didn’t have her on a minority recruiting list based on test scores. In other words, it could be at best an ineffectual gesture of principle and at worst, posturing; making the gesture knowing that it doesn’t jeopardize the benefits.

I thought the cynical point of view was that the colleges are letting in substandard applicants to raise the % of minority students. If this were the case, why would they hurt themselves (reduce the strength of their student body) by letting in unqualified students that don’t even show up as URM in the statistics?</p>

[tokenadult]

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865329-post4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865329-post4.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865354-post5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865354-post5.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[siserune]

<p>

I thought the cynical point of view was that the colleges are letting in substandard applicants to raise the % of minority students. If this were the case, why would they hurt themselves (reduce the strength of their student body) by letting in unqualified students that don’t even show up as URM in the statistics?

</p>

<p>Colleges can (and some do) count such “extra” URM in the statistics – students who don’t report an ethnicity but are imputed one by administrators. Princeton’s CDS reported a figure of zero for students of “unknown” race/ethnic status in some years, for example. The Federal rules neither require nor prevent race imputation, as far as I know.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>I just found out today that I have some aboriginal roots, albeit iit’s so minuscule that it’s probably irrelevant in terms of college admissions.</p>

[u_ername]

<p>I think if you HONESTLY feel that that’s an important part of who you are, then put it down. If not, then don’t.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

I am middle eastern as both of my parents were born in Palestine

</p>

<p>That much is classified “white” by the federal rules, which the Census Bureau acknowledges are not scientific. </p>

<p>[Black</a> or African American persons, percent, 2000](<a href=“http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm]Black”>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm) </p>

<p>There isn’t any bright-line rule about how much heritage or attachment is enough to belong to more than one “race” or to have Hispanic ethnicity, but a college may be skeptical of a claim that doesn’t influence your current daily life. There also isn’t any bright-line rule about how much colleges will regard such distinctions, except that some state universities, by state law, are not supposed to use race or ethnicity as an admission factor at all. </p>

<p>Good luck in your applications. Be true to yourself.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE TO THREAD: </p>

<p>A flame war erupted here while I was busy in my off-line personal life, and some thoughtful participants here reported some problem posts to the volunteer moderation team. Various moderators have looked at the thread, and enforcement actions under the CC Terms of Service </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>have been taken. Some previous posts have been deleted. There are a few quotations of posts that are no longer posted, which is a bit confusing, but better than leaving up the whole previous posts. </p>

<p>Carry on with civil, thoughtful discussion by rules, </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>which is what most participants have been doing here. Refer back to the FAQ posts at the beginning of this thread </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062864808-post1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062864808-post1.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865088-post2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865088-post2.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865289-post3.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865289-post3.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865329-post4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865329-post4.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865354-post5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865354-post5.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865387-post6.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865387-post6.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865405-post7.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062865405-post7.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062867298-post8.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062867298-post8.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062909371-post78.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062909371-post78.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>for answers to Frequently Asked Questions on this often contentious issue.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Let’s add another success story: that of Barack Obama. I won’t recount it for you: I’m sure everyone knows it well enough.

First of all, Barack Obama was well-qualified in the first place in terms of college admissions. Any AA boost he received was likely largely unnecessary. And still, AA is completely irrelevant when it comes to rising to extremely powerful and distinguished positions. Last time I checked, voting machines didn’t give 500k extra votes to black candidates.</p>

<p>Also, are you aware of your implications? You are perhaps suggesting that African-Americans and other URMs are incapable of achieving success without racial AA. That is the subconscious discrimination that has been created in America because of things like AA. Not to mention that it is completely false; racial AA may have helped Obama and Sotomayor overcome their disadvantages, but so would socioeconomic AA, and that would not only have helped Sotomayor and Obama get their careers on the right path but it would also help countless others who have the determination to become future leaders but aren’t exposed to the same opportunities as others. Racial AA directly gives advantages based upon ethnicity which is what makes it wrong. I have no problem with disadvantaged URMs receiving an advantage; in fact, I encourage it. But while AA does achieve this goal, it currently also neglects disadvantaged ORMs and Caucasians and unfairly relegates advantage to wealthy URMs.</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>^ President Barack Obama was, of course, mostly brought up by the “white” people in his family. He has never publicly stated how he self-identified his “race” in the college application process. When he became president of the Harvard Law Review, that was announced as Harvard Law Review’s first black president, and I didn’t know from press accounts at the time that Obama grew up with a “white” family. His interesting personal background probably will have some influence at the margins on federal policy on this still contentious issue.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>^ The fact that Obama was successful under a white but not affluent family supports my speculation that the main reason for the disparity between Caucasians and African-Americans in terms of SAT scores is not a socioeconomic or genetic reason but is rather a social difference caused by the strong cultural segergation between blacks and whites regardless of class that still exists today.</p>

[quiddity]

<p>Obama won because he is half black. You can’t deny it.</p>

<p>Imagine if Obama was white. He certainly would not have won, though he might have still been the democratic candidate. If both McCain AND Obama were white, who would have had the better credentials? McCain. Experienced politician, spent a lifetime serving his country, had good ideas (Obama had some good ideas too, but not this other stuff), etc. Versus relatively young man, barely any time serving the country, a politician for only a few years, brought up in Indonesia, birthplace questioned, stutters while debating (watch the Presidential debates again and tell me otherwise!), pauses when debating for no logical reason, etc.</p>

<p>But this whole BLACK PRESIDENT ZOMG!!! thing took over the country (not to mention the world–globally, people mostly wanted Obama, saying it was such a “huge step” that a “black” man would be the US President) and made them love him.</p>

<p>Once again, I’ll say it: If Obama was white, he would have lost the election.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>^ Are you going to major in political science?</p>

[monstor344]

<p>

Imagine if Obama was white. He certainly would not have won, though he might have still been the democratic candidate.

I do not dispute this at all, but it nevertheless has no relevance to AA. He wasn’t artificially given a higher number of votes by the electoral college.</p>

[Old_College_Try]

<p>monstor344, I think quiddity’s point is relevant to AA. I think many white people supported both President Obama’s and AA because of guilt. There seems to be this widespread feeling of guilt for many white Americans for slavery and the basic lack of civil rights extended African Americans, even though they personally had nothing to do with it. My sister cried when Obama was elected, and she’s not interested in politics at all. When I asked her why, she explained that she felt his election proved that our country was no longer dominated by racists. His election helped ease the guilt she feels about slavery, etc. I think AA exists for the same reason. </p>

<p>As a non-Asian, I can only guess, but I think many Asians dislike AA because they don’t feel this guilt. And why should they? Not only did they not enslave Africans, they were treated like slaves when they came to the US. The nation passed laws in ensure that both Chinese and Japanese could not come here. Japanese were interred during World War II. The list goes on. So why should they pay for the white man’s guilt?</p>

<p>I also think some elite African Americans play on this guilt and make the most out of it, people like Professor Gates and Jesse Jackson. </p>

<p>Have you ever noticed in television and movies, each time a commercial or program has to portray a dumb person, they cast a white man as that person? Whether it’s a stupid white father, a stupid white husband, whatever. I sold home alarm systems last summer. Our company had four commercials shown on TV. Each one showed a white man breaking into a house. My manager told me that this was intentional. It’s pretty crazy.</p>

[monstor344]

<p>As an Asian, I can speak for why I am personally offended by this guilt theory because Asians didn’t exactly have an easy time coming into America. Asians were basically treated like crap from the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s and faced extreme racism during WW2 and Vietnam. And true, the relationship between African Americans and Caucasians in America has been accentuated to a point where every kid in America knows the story of slavery and the Civil Rights movement before they are 12, making it understandable why one would come to the conclusion that perhaps AA is guilt-driven. But it then doesn’t make sense how no one has lobbied for AA in favor of Asians; in fact, Asians are the most disadvantaged ethnicity in the college admissions process.</p>

<p>That is why I don’t buy the notion that affirmative action is guilt-driven; it is hypocritical and contradictory to a point where it makes no sense.</p>