<p>^ Yes, we can all learn a lot from one another here, and I definitely encourage people to speak up with information they have from their unique perspective. But then listen to the other participants, to learn from their perspectives.</p>
<p>Posts 819 and 827 are just spot-on. NearL does in fact understand the way admissions works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they are not. This is one of the fallacies with a life of its own on CC. SES is a different factor – one of many in examining the potential drive of the applicant and in evaluating the relationship of opportunity to achievement, and in determining the ultimate balance of the eventual freshman class.</p>
<p>It’s depressing to see how divisive race is in the world. It’s just skin. As hopeful as we were that President Obama’s election would bring us into a post-racial world, we are now disappointed that we are divided as ever. Both sides are at fault. I can’t recall the number of times the left yells “Racists!” to describe anyone who dares criticize the President. Now the right is calling the President himself a racist. It seems to me that people use the word “racist” like it’s a hand grenade. Logic and reason are ignored and emotion is now the driving force behind all arguments about race. </p>
<p>I feel the same about race and college admissions. People get so upset that someone may be given an advantage in admissions when it doesn’t really matter in the long run. My sister did a 15-year study on law school admissions and race. She followed 12 candidates of color through law school and their legal careers. What she found is that even though race is a factor in college admissions, and even though students at top schools have a big advantage at first when it comes to jobs, everything evens out in the end. Those students who are the most capable – regardless of race – survive the legal system long term, and those who are not capable do not. In other words, not all of us will be accepted into our first school of choice, but in the end it is very likely that all of us will end up where we deserve to be, judged solely by talent and ability. So why do we get so upset by AA? AA only matters for a little while. In the end, talent and ability is all that matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alas, that is kind of a hand-grenade word. Emphasizing common humanity among all individuals who constitute species Homo sapiens seems to me to be a step forward. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that published somewhere? Has it been replicated by any other researcher?</p>
<p>
What it comes down to is this: Race is not a proxy for environment in America. Are there significantly more black kids in city slums than kids of other races? Yes, but that doesn’t mean those white kids should be discounted either. And if racial AA were implemented, only those URMs in the city slums would be helped; poor whites/ORMs under the same living conditions would not be helped by the admissions process as much. Furthermore, those poor white kids in the Appalachians wouldn’t be given nearly as much help either; even though their living conditions might be less dangerous and hostile, they still face immense difficulties in getting into top schools.</p>
<p>Race might be able to predict trends in environment under the same socioeconomic group, but that’s it. It’s not a definitive proxy, it benefits some undeserving candidates (rich URMs), and it overall produces drastically different admissions results compared to a socioeconomic/location-based system.</p>
<p>My beliefs on schools that are not need-blind: If a school cannot afford to support a socioeconomic AA system, they should not abide by any AA system, period.</p>
<p>Schools also want diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The vast majority of people populating inner-city slums are black or Hispanic. This fact is not arguable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not arguing for racial AA. I explained why racial AA is here to stay in some form or another even in the event that official racial AA is scrapped. Here is the explanation again:</p>
<p>quote from NearL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To sum it all up again, here’s the general framework of my argument.</p>
<p>*The idea behind socioeconomic AA is that situational factors, including educational opportunities and resources should be accounted for when considering college applicants. Environment and resources matter.</p>
<p>*Violent ghettos are the harshest, most dangerous environments in America.</p>
<p>*Most poor blacks and, and many poor Latinos come from violent ghettos. Indeed, most violent ghettos are – by a large margin – majority black or Latino.</p>
<p>*Since environmental consideration is a natural extension of socioeconomic AA, people from violent ghettos would get an extra boost.</p>
<p>*The majority of people getting the extra boost would be black or Latino.
We now have de facto racial AA within socioeconomic AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>proxy |ˈpr</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So true. All of the arguments for racial AA has been shot down time and time again, yet those people keep bringing up the same arguments.</p>
<p>
- yes.
- maybe, I don’t know, so I can’t say.
- sure, I don’t know enough either
- yup, assuming 2 and 3 are true.</p>
<p>^Let’s say the points above you’ve mentioned are true.</p>
<ol>
<li>URMs not in the above situations will not gain an unfair advantage with socioeconomic AA</li>
<li>Disadvatanged asians and whites (though maybe not as disadvantaged as URMs) will no longer have even more disadvantages against them.</li>
<li>Most important point here, </li>
</ol>
<p>but **Even if thoes ghettos you speak of are the most disadvantaged, most violent areas in the US, think about this: How many kids from ghettos actually apply to top schools? </p>
<p>That’s right. Not many. Sure a lot of the black population is disadvantaged, but they’re NOT THE SAME PEOPLE AS THE ONES APPLYING TO TOP SCHOOLS. Sure, there may be a few every year, but that’s not enough to justify racial AA. **</p>
<p>You’re using the fact that some non-applicant URMs are disadvantaged, so the other URMs deserve a boost also.</p>
<p>So no, with socioeconomic AA there won’t still be racial AA, because only a very very small number of people from the ghettos actually apply.</p>
<p>
Something that I proceeded to acknowledge in the next sentence.
If you’re not arguing for why racial AA should be implemented then you’re not answering the inquiry I imposed that originally began this debate.
This is not racial AA. The fact that socioeconomic AA would help URMs more than any other group does not make it based by race; it is a case of correlation not causation (I apologize for the cliche but I couldn’t think of a more concise and direct phrase). I am completely fine with the fact that URMs are often the main beneficiaries of affirmative action so long as they receive that benefit not because of the color of their skin but because of the obstacles they have to face in getting into top universities.</p>
<p>I do essentially agree with your reasoning. However my initial challenge of finding a reasonable argument for a racial-based affirmative action remains uncontested.</p>
<p>
And let me ask you this: What sort of superior diversity does racial AA produce over socioeconomic AA? Is this the sort diversity that’s considered valuable or that enhances the overall experience at a college? Skin tone? Once again, I understand that it might be a reason why AA exists, but at the same time it isn’t exactly justified when you think about it.</p>
<p>Diversity is one of the most basic lessons in business. </p>
<p>Colleges like diversity in all forms: status, race, location, etc.
The applicants just have to make it work for them. </p>
<p>And yes, diversity creates new dimensions to all sorts of life, including collegiate.</p>
<p>
But that doesn’t answer why racial diversity matters. Cultural diversity is primarily a factor of location and socioeconomic status; race is largely insignificant. If a school wants to achieve this, its best options are, once again, socioeconomic and location-based AA (and perhaps a program allowing for the admittance of more internationals, but that could never happen for a variety of reasons).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ethnic diversity (with the exception of minority Asian ethnic groups) is created by racial diversity. Hispanics are an ethnic group. Black Americans are an ethnic group. African immigrants and their recent descendants are of many different ethnic groups. Native Americans, too, are of many different ethnic groups. I’m not stating this as a fact in support of racial AA< just simply stating it as a fact. Not very many white Americans are going to take part in weddings where jumping over a broom is a central activity. Nor are many non-Hispanic whites going to have a Quinceanera. Racial groups are not cultural groups but they do contain them, so saying that AA only brings a superficial diversity of skin tones is inaccurate.</p>
<p>The problem with diversity arguments is that AA doesn’t necessarily bring that. Even though there weren’t as a high percentage of them as with other races, there were still more blacks making more than $100,000 than those making less than $50,000. Overall, the percentage of people making less than $50,000 at Duke is probably around 20%. Also, black students at top colleges are more likely than average to be immigrants.</p>
<p>
In college you won’t be jumping over too many brooms, nor will you be celebrating 15th birthdays. Sorry if this argument seems somewhat shallow because I do believe a few positive aspects of diversity are created when race is considered (I withdraw my strict argument saying skin color is the only diversity being created). I do also think, however, that socioeconomic AA provides a kind of diversity that is miles above the type of diversity created with racial AA in terms of usefulness and lessons learned for a college.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I never said the advantage was unfair. I said that they would get a larger boost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re saying, but disadvantaged Asians and whites will get a boost. That’s good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that’s your most important point, you’re in for some trouble. The vast majority of kids in general don’t apply to top schools. The vast majority of poor, competitive kids of all races don’t apply to top schools. Thus, by your own logic, socioeconomic AA can’t be justified. I’m more familiar with the tippy top schools than most and I can tell you that the majority of students and applicants are from well-off families.</p>
<p>But even if that weren’t the case, my justification for racial AA isn’t a justification at all. I’m saying that racial AA would be a de facto extension of socioeconomic AA, and that’s a truth. If you’re going to factor in socioeconomic status, you’re going to factor in environment and opportunity – that’s the point. It just so happens that many blacks and Hispanics come from very bad environments thus they will, on average, get a greater boost. Hence, de facto racial AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A very, very small number of minorities actually apply to top schools relative to the overall applicant pool (hence any differences in admit rates). I guess racial AA doesn’t exist now!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I’m just trying to illustrate why some form of de fact racial AA is here to stay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That line of reasoning fails totally, for (at least) two reasons.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>White vs black admission shows the same pattern you are trying to explain, with the higher scoring group being rejected more often. But in that case we know the reason for the rate difference; the universities openly exercise preferences for the lower-scoring group.</p></li>
<li><p>The admissions rates aren’t the quantity of interest. The question is whether otherwise identical applicants from group A and group B have, on average, substantially different chances. There are statistical tests one can perform to assess this. Espenshade and Chung performed one such test and found that being Asian was, all other traits among those used in their model being equal, equivalent to a 50-point deduction in SAT score, and thus a negative for admission. That isn’t conclusive, but it is certainly suggestive of discrimination. Anyone arguing against it would have to indicate a race-neutral admissions model (one not distinguishing the Asian and White categories) that could explain the same data, or justify the Asian discrimination on race neutral grounds (such as certain Asian subpopulations over-using SAT prep, leading to inflated scores that colleges may deflate simply as a way of choosing the smartest students).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>socioeconomic AA does not give advantage to people who don’t deserve it, like rich blacks do with racial AA.</p></li>
<li><p>My point was, that more disadvantaged asians and whites would be applying than disadvantaged URMs. That’s why there won’t be more URMs benefiting from a socioeconomic AA, which is what I meant by it not being racial AA.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>when I said a very small number, I meant in comparison to other groups that are applying.</p>
<p>I don’t mean that because it’s a very small group, they don’t matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any form of preference will advantage many undeserving recipients. There is nothing specific to a preference system that includes race as one of the factors, that makes it likelier to mis-allocate resources than a system that ignores race. Quite the opposite: the more factors utilized, the more accurate and fair the decisions can be. </p>
<p>Lots of economically poor students suffer no academic disadvantage, because in their families the children are expected to study and not earn money, or because all available resources are directed to education. That’s especially true of some Asian immigrant groups. There isn’t much rationale for universities to provide an admissions boost for Korean immigrant students whose economic “disadvantage” is not having a flat-screen TV, Iphone, or a larger car. A black or Hispanic student with the same economics as the immigrant Korean may face family pressure to perform non-academic work outside of school hours, and that does make a difference academically.</p>