<p>Perhaps this book review </p>
<p>[gladwell</a> dot com - getting in](<a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html]gladwell”>http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html) </p>
<p>will fill in some of the history. </p>
<p>Interesting in this context is which ethnic groups are NOT asked about on college application forms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, he is alluding to the history of holistic admissions. It’s good that tokenadult posted a link to Gladwell’s review of The Chosen, for Gladwell recounts exactly why what the Ivy League did back then “is essentially the same system that the Ivy League uses to this day.”</p>
<p>Consider the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, prior to 1922, Harvard did not ask its applicants to submit a letter of recommendation, to write an essay, to demonstrate their leadership, to list their extracurriculars, or to answer what race they were. Hmm, except for the question on race, aren’t all of those mandatory at all selective colleges today?</p>
<p>QED. It is a delicious irony that a system designed to exclude is now touted as the very model of inclusion. One of my peeves is how so many people think that holistic admissions is new. Unless eighty-six is considered young, holistic admissions is not new.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want a school that selects students solely based on your definition of “merit”, attend a state school that publishes its admissions formula and concrete standards. Don’t apply to schools that value racial diversity in their student bodies if it bothers you so much. If enough people share your sentiment schools like Harvard will become irrelevant because they won’t have any exceptional students. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why stalwart opponents of AA believe that instead of choosing a college consistent with their individual ideals, which I’m not necessarily criticizing, feel entitled to force private (to a lesser extent public) universities renowned for their unique experience to fit their definition of “merit” and “qualified”, both loaded terms.</p>
<p>Think about the people applying to universities. Would you want to attend a university that didn’t have many people of your race? (I guess this wouldn’t apply to ORMs.) I know as I am doing my college search I am looking for a university with a nice representative # of Blacks, because let’s face it: students don’t want to be one of the ONLY people of their kind. When people start checking “unknown” on a wide-scale basis, it makes it harder for prospective students to get a feel for the university as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe fifty years ago, racial diversity bothered many people. But, it’s not fifty years ago; it’s 2008. You’re arguing the wrong point. The discussion has nothing to do with people being bothered by racial diversity. It has everything to do with whether you think it has to be forced or not.</p>
<p>Moreover, there are indeed several private universities that seem to not practice racial preferences at all. Take Caltech for example. It is private and thus not beholden to Proposition 209. However, it looks just like UC-Berkeley or UCLA.</p>
<p>Harvard won’t have any exceptional students if they don’t practice racial preferences? OK, please tell me that I have misunderstood you. Please, PLEASE, say it ain’t so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a stalwart opponent of racial preferences, I believe that a private college can do whatever it wants as long as it receives no public funding. You might protest, “Pointless! It’s private; it doesn’t receive public funding in the first place!” However, to my knowledge, private universities participate in the federal loan program, which ultimately is publicly funded.</p>
<p>I don’t think that attending a college means you agree 100% with its ideology, its practices, and so forth. Tell me with a straight face that the Jews who applied to Harvard in the 1920s supported Harvard’s anti-Jewish policies!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t deny for one second that I enjoy company with Chinese people, particularly second-generation American Chinese. Having that said, in Spring 2007, I seriously considered attending Washington & Lee, a school that is about 4% Asian. I visited there and felt that I would be happy as a student there despite their not having many Asian students.</p>
<p>As the racial preference advocates are so fond of saying, race is but one factor of many. It was part of my criteria, but it wasn’t the overriding one for me. If you’re really considering attending University X, then you’ll pay them a visit and you’ll find out for yourself what the demographics are. If you say no to a school because you didn’t know the student body breakdown, then what does that say about the importance of race to you?</p>
<p>Why not consider all your fellow human beings part of your race? </p>
<p>(P.S. I actually have attended a university–in another country–where I was very visibly part of a tiny “minority” group of foreigners of a different “race,” and I found that to be a great learning experience, both for me and for my classmates. Once you’ve traveled more you will observe how much people have in common all over the world, whatever they look like.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my understanding that this ^ is exactly the point of creating racially diverse college campuses. If everyone on campus looks just like you, you won’t learn this in college.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand why stalwart opponents of AA believe that instead of choosing a college consistent with their individual ideals, which I’m not necessarily criticizing, feel entitled to force private (to a lesser extent public) universities renowned for their unique experience to fit their definition of “merit” and “qualified”, both loaded terms.”</p>
<p>Because they’re control freaks.</p>
<p>Has anyone ever attended a college information meeting at which the college said anything other than that the college likes diversity?</p>
<p>None of the college information meetings I sat in ever had anything but praise for the virtues of diversity. I would find it very surprising if there were a single college in the United States that openly opposed diversity. Lest anyone quips about California or Michigan, let’s not forget that opposing affirmative action and opposing diversity are distinct.</p>
<p>Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority in Gratz, dissented in Grutter, and voted with the majority in Parents Involved. His record as a Supreme Court Justice clearly shows that he is no fan of racial preferences. Even so, unlike Justices Scalia and Thomas, Kennedy has stated that he supports the concept of diversity.</p>
<p><a href=“P.S.%20I%20actually%20have%20attended%20a%20university–in%20another%20country–where%20I%20was%20very%20visibly%20part%20of%20a%20tiny%20%22minority%22%20group%20of%20foreigners%20of%20a%20different%20%22race,%22%20and%20I%20found%20that%20to%20be%20a%20great%20learning%20experience,%20both%20for%20me%20and%20for%20my%20classmates.%20Once%20you’ve%20traveled%20more%20you%20will%20observe%20how%20much%20people%20have%20in%20common%20all%20over%20the%20world,%20whatever%20they%20look%20like.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That could be said for here in America as well, as I’ve experienced it on many levels, however, I’ve come to the conclusion that self segregation is as natural as breathing to many in this country. The reasons are complex but it exists. There’s some truth to the addage “you get in where you fit in.”</p>
<p>Race does matter. And all the idealism in the world is not going to change that. The proof is in the pudding. Many discrepancies that are between various peoples whether it is college admissions, jobs, wealth accumulation, income disparities, health care, home ownership, etc, etc, there is a discernable barrier that leads to these various standard of living comparisons. Look at the presidential campaign.There are so so many who will not vote for BO, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF HIS ETHNICITY. Does one need to be a sociologist to extrapolate that happening in other facets of American life?</p>
<p>It never ceases to amaze me with so few candidates vying for various positions in programs targeting people of color, the uproar. The numbers are so small reatively speaking and the results more positive than negative from those benefactors. For them their respective families and communities benefit greatly. In a country that is so wealthy, is this too much? Apparently it is. </p>
<p>I have a bi racial child, a white spouse, AA children who have benefitted beyond my wildest dreams in predominently white environments. But when I look back on my courtship of my wife, the comments and personal negative experiences my children have endured because of their ethnicity, the lack of social capital to an extent and how that has parlayed into diminished opportunities compared to their peers, the personal anecdotes of their white friends being ostracised by family and friends alike because they dated out of their race, I have zero remorse for taking every advantage of those programs that create opportunity for people of color. I can tell you the greatest benefactors of AA policies in this country hasn’t been the people of color here. The problem is that many people unfortunately, are looking at the principle of fairness and equality through jaded and opaque glasses.</p>
<p>As a heralded Republican once stated;</p>
<p>The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner."MLK</p>
<p>and another…</p>
<p>"One of the implications of universalism is that those who are more fortunate need not be any more deserving than those in misery. For some, this suggests an imperative for redistribution of wealth, while for some others it may suggest a sharing of the knowledge and the development of the habits, priorities, and values that would enable others to create wealth for themselves. For those of us that believe the latter, simply giving people things is counterproductive from the standpoint of getting them to become productive themselves. Nor is what is given likely to equal what the recipients could have created for themselves if the sources of productivity had been shared, rather than the fruits. Thomas Sowell</p>
<p>I’m all for sharing the sources of productivity, i.e. a college education, discrepancies notwithstanding. </p>
<p>How about you?..</p>
<p>Tyler: “I don’t understand why stalwart opponents of AA believe that instead of choosing a college consistent with their individual ideals, which I’m not necessarily criticizing, feel entitled to force private (to a lesser extent public) universities renowned for their unique experience to fit their definition of “merit” and “qualified”, both loaded terms.”</p>
<p>This is because practices which they don’t believe in are packaged with things they do want. For example, they may disapprove of AA, but want the postgraduate opportunities that come easier with an ivy league degree.
In the corporate world, Microsoft used to try to package its browser with Microsoft Office in an effort to push their browser down people’s throats. I think they set it up so that no other browser would work with Microsoft Office, forcing you to use Microsoft’s browser. </p>
<p>Also, going to a university which is not as highly regarded as an ivy can undermine your credibility in criticizing admissions practices. Criticism of admissions practices could be dismissed as sour grapes.</p>
<p>I’ve been wondering, if you were to take two kids, identical everything, except one was say Native American and one was Caucasian, do you think the school would choose the Native (or any other minority for that matter) simply because he/she is a minority?</p>
<p>I wonder this, because my sophomore year for the PSAT, I reported myself as White. My junior year, I had gotten my enrollment card in the Cherokee tribe, and reported myself as Native American. What’s funny, is that after scores came out sophomore year, I got quite a bit of mail, but from some not so great schools. Certainly not bad schools, I just wasn’t being scouted super heavily. Junior year, as a Native American, I scored the same score (or maybe like 2 points more, like 192 to 194 from soph to junior) and I got letters from Yale, Harvard, UPenn, NYU, etc. Al lot of the really big names, and I’d say a majority of them were from “Offices of Minority Recruitment” or something to that effect. </p>
<p>Why, all of the sudden, did these top notch schools begin to notice me, when they didn’t the year before? Surely since they don’t discriminate based on race, it couldn’t be because I changed my ethnicity… or could it?</p>
<p>because you were a junior. Everybody gets those letters once you reach a score threshold.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can attest to this. I was once given a Catch-22 during a discussion here. An ardent supporter of racial preferences said that if you opposed affirmative action AND were rejected from at least one university (read: an Ivy), then you’re just being bitter. However, if you opposed affirmative action BUT received no rejections, then there was no reason for you to oppose it. Thus, to her, no one is allowed is to criticize the policy! You can only praise it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But not everyone gets ones from “Offices of Minority Recruitment.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We all know that race is a sociopolitical construct. But it has meaning because like it or not, it correlates well with cultural attitudes, political views, socioeconomic status, and so forth. There are undeniable cultural differences between black and white America, and to blindly ignore this while singing Kumbaya will do nothing to bridge the more problematic of these differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As Dr. King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I completely agree with that.</p>
<p>You pointed out that he also said, “The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.” I can’t agree with that. As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal…It is far too late to argue that the guarantee of equal protection to all persons permits the recognition of special wards entitled to a degree of protection greater than that accorded others.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I request proof for this very broad statement. Show me some examples that are attested in peer-reviewed scientific literature.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060822179-post49.html]#49[/url]”>quote</a> “I don’t understand why stalwart opponents of AA believe that instead of choosing a college consistent with their individual ideals, which I’m not necessarily criticizing, feel entitled to force private (to a lesser extent public) universities renowned for their unique experience to fit their definition of “merit” and “qualified”, both loaded terms.”</p>
<p>Because they’re control freaks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Empathy should lead to an epiphany that we have more that unites us/U.S. than divides us/U.S.</p>