<p>Have you even heard of “The Game”? As someone who follows Ivy League baseball a bit, I’ve learned that the Ivies, especially HYP, all send baseball players into the MLB. Sure, they don’t always get the absolute top-notch athletes, but D1 is D1. To think Ivy League athletics is an oxymoron is ludicrous. And MIT, while not as competitive, at least takes its athletics seriously. And I don’t want to bash Caltech because it is an exceptional institution that I would love to attend if I weren’t interested in playing baseball there, but it is not as prestigious as HYPSM in part because of the perceived nerdiness of Caltech. And it is differentiated from MIT because while MIT has shifted into a more well-rounded school with multiple strong departments and respectable athletics, Caltech has remained stringent with its primary purpose of being a school for those passionate for the maths/sciences.</p>
<p>Of course these schools aren’t able to match the level of athletics at UT, LSU, ASU, etc. But that doesn’t mean that athletics are negligible in the least.</p>
<p>And my stance on legacies is that the boosts for legacies should be minimal. Once again, I don’t agree with the level at which legacies/athletes must reach; I do think the bar should be raised, particularly for legacies. But you can’t make a legitimate argument stipulating that athletics/legacies add absolutely nothing to a school.</p>
<p>I wonder why the margin is so substantial when comparing medical schools to law schools? </p>
<p>Anyone have a a clue as to why Medical schools admission is based mostly on GPA/MCAT and why Law schools have better acceptance rates for URM’s.</p>
<p>Have you ever been to The Game? No one cares. The stadium is never, ever full or even close to it. There are high school football team rivalries that blow the Harvard-Yale football rivalry clean out of the water. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Caltech isn’t as prestigious as MIT because Caltech is the size of a liberal arts college and lacks MIT’s history, faculty, cache and ties to Harvard. MIT’s athletics have nothing to do with its greater perceived prestige. Most people don’t even know MIT has a athletics team.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Already did. The costs of maintaining athletic programs at HYPSMCC are greater than the revenue generated by the programs in question. No one cares about athletics at those schools.</p>
<p>Look, I’m not suggesting that athletics are super-intense or a focus point like they are at public institutions. But they are definitely not a joke. No school with professional-level athletes has a joke of an athletics department.</p>
The premises [listed] in the American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race”:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those are sham premises manufactured for an easy refutation; straw-men.<br>
They are not the assumptions of everyday, unofficial “social race labelling”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody has ever claimed that social race labels are “separate divisions”. Even the most die-hard racists have understood that partial membership in different groups is possible. </p>
<p>It is also well understood that perfect, exhaustive categorization of anything admitting a lot of internal variation (diseases, cuisines, jobs, cultures, artistic styles … even human or animal genders!) is effectively impossible. Nevertheless, doctors still consider it important to make diagnoses, and we don’t have (outside of the vaguer fields such as psychiatry) anti-diagnosis activists demanding to use words like “disease” or “diagnosis” only between quotation marks. There is still a useful concept of Mexican food as distinct, or distinct enough, from Indian food or Chinese food; “men” as distinct from “women”, and so on. Is it your opinion that those distinctions also should be discarded as useless, pre-scientific delusions? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Total nonsense. Social race labels are not, and have never been, a function of visible physical differences. They are an amalgam of physical appearance and whatever other contextual information is available. Name, language, clothing, region of birth, music, “culture”, and the same relating to family members and associates, all are (examples of) factors implicitly or explicitly considered. </p>
<p>When multiple indicators agree, one has a diagnosis, just as in medicine.<br>
Different diagnosticians may disagree, just as in medicine. Where’s the “incorrect premise” that doesn’t apply to medical, gastronomical, artistic or other useful classifications?</p>
<p>Also, it has long been understood, including by the most rabid racists, that people from clearly distinct “races” or ancestry groups (a white Frenchman and a Cherokee) can look alike. This alone should dispel the idea that social race labels are a function of physical appearance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s another invention as it concerns social race labelling. Show us any instance of social race labelling that claims to be crisp, unambiguous, universal, or “biologically distinct” (whatever that means). Though the genetic clusters found in the DNA studies are quite striking and don’t overlap much. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That one is simply false, as discussed in the earlier thread. DNA studies clearly (visibly!) indicate objective clustering structure in the genome, and it corresponds well with social race/ancestry group labels.</p>
<p>So you all know with the affirmative action and all.
I’m Persian, so technically i would be considered in the “White” category, but I can also apply as “other.” Which do you believe would be more as to give you the “tip”?</p>
<p>I know the “white” category has almost the same population as the “Asian,” so I’m thinking “other” is better.</p>
<p>So what effect would it have on my application if I declare that I am an Asian, have a very Chinese surname (as you can see in my username), as well as being an international applicant from Australia who is not very Asian at all (I’m a percussionist, love my sport etc.)?</p>
<p>^ International applicants are in a different category anyway. For your admission file, the most important thing about you is “Australian,” not “Asian.”</p>
<p>What are people seeing for race and ethnicity questions on this year’s college application forms? Are they all in compliance with the new federal regulations? </p>
<p>^ I think the applicant data collection, which indeed appears not to be published anywhere, produces records that can be investigated if a college is suspected of biased admission practices, as in one case </p>