<p>Caucasians, hands down.</p>
<p>in intelligent/qualified Native American is basically an automatic-in at any college. </p>
<p>especially if they actually maintain some kind of connection with their NA heritage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Colleges don’t publish figures that allow making accurate inferences about which ethnic groups are most favored in the admission process by colleges. Presumably, this varies from college to college, with some colleges hardly considering ethnicity at all, and some private colleges perhaps considering it a lot, and perhaps considering categories that don’t fit the official federal categories, which are </p>
<p>Hispanic or Latino (a category that can overlap with any “race”) </p>
<p>White</p>
<p>Black or African American</p>
<p>Asian</p>
<p>American Indian or Alaska Native</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander </p>
<p>Some colleges used to provide considerable publicity about their affirmative action efforts and mention what ethnicities they especially favored, while other colleges have never played this up, because their admission process largely looks at different student characteristics. You could always write a bunch of emails to colleges and see how they answer this question, or you could drill down through admission websites to see what colleges have publicly posted about their policies, but I doubt that you will find a general answer, and I’m severely skeptical that you’ll even find an accurate answer from any one college. </p>
<p>Good luck in your applications.</p>
<p>@ ikir07:</p>
<p>So your friend has lower SAT scores and grades than you did. They still seem to be decent stats and the admissions committee at Carnegie Mellon must obviously have thought he was a fit or he wouldn’t have been accepted.</p>
<p>Why do you necessarily infer that his acceptance came down to his ethnicity? Perhaps his athletic abilities or family wealth made him a good candidate and he just happened to be black? I am just raising the question because you make it sound like this student shouldn’t have been offered a place at Carnegie Mellon.</p>
<p>I think more people on here need to recognize that private institution are free to admit whoever they want. Academics are important in higher ed but so is money and private colleges will always consider potential benefits from admitting wealthy students who can bring both tuition dollars and potential donations to the school. Same goes for athletes: alumni care about how their alma mater performs in sports and thus it makes sense from a fund raising perspective to populate teams with able people. </p>
<p>Students who want a total meritocracy should consider applying to college in Europe or Asia where most institutions only consider grades and test scores. Anyone who has ever visited universities in such countries (I have) will be able to testify that they are much less dynamic and interesting places to study because almost all students are the same. U.S. colleges are not great because they only admit students with the highest SATs and GPAs, they are great because they are melting pots where people from all segments in society congregate, compete, cooperate and grow their minds both academically and socially. </p>
<p>I just wish more posters on CC could rejoice in the success of their peers who gain admission to the top colleges instead of downplaying their efforts by citing SAT scores, GPAs and, even more disturbingly, ethnicity. If you really wish to change the landscape of college admissions, aim to become an admissions employee instead of a doctor, lawyer, engineer or i-banker or the other tacky money-rules jobs that so many people here are obsessed with.</p>
<p>Can somebody explain to me… (a legitimate inquiry, I’m surprised I’ve never asked this)</p>
<p>…how eliminating the race/ethnicity box on will contribute to a “post-racial” society?</p>
<p>I obviously understand the basic logic that some believe that the best way to be post-racial is to stop acknowledging race. I validly disagree with that as impractical. How else will this contribute to a post-racial society without increasing disparities between races which would only accentuate their social reality?</p>
<p>And if it does advance a post-racial society, how does it do this moreso than diversity on college campuses?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Research by Espenshade and Chung has found that being black is worth the equivalent of 230 additional SAT points, all else equal. Being Hispanic is worth the equivalent of 185 extra points, all else equal. For reference, recruited athletes gain a bonus equivalent to 200 extra points, and legacy status is worth 160 points, ceteris paribus. I note that in his critique of Espenshade and Chung’s research, William Kidder did not dispute any of these figures. He only criticized Espenshade and Chung’s conclusion that ending affirmative action helps Asians.</p>
<p>what swedefish?</p>
<p>i never said that im ****ed off that he got admitted. did you read my last line? im happy that he got in.</p>
<p>it didnt come down to his family wealth. i just said hes richer to rule out the economic factor in admissions. he isnt THAT much richer than me to the point where CM would get lifetime donations. by the way, i didnt apply there…</p>
<p>and it wasnt about athletics either lol. he wasnt being recruited or anything. he just played on the team for 4 years, so its just an EC, not a hook.</p>
<p>i never complained about anything in my post. i just said that you cant deny the pull that URMs have. is it fair? maybe not. do i care? no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People reify (take seriously as expressions of reality) the categories they see on government forms and hear reported in government statistics. I’m old enough to remember when some of the current categories didn’t even exist, and when others were differently defined. What the government asks about makes a difference in people’s thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Define post-racial society as one where skin color is not a relevant factor on which to base any decision.</p>
<p>By asking the question of race or ethnicity, the box-in-question makes it clear that skin color is relevant. If it were not relevant, then it would not be asked. (Do they ever ask what your blood type is?)</p>
<p>If the “diversity” on college campuses was artificially created, then it certainly would not be contributing to a post-racial society since skin color was a factor involved in the creation of that “diversity.”</p>
<p>By artificially diversifying campuses, an effort is being made to get to the point where race REALLY isn’t a factor. Just removing the boxes isn’t going to change society, getting everyone on an equal footing will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So can colleges simply admit the students they like, based on the criteria important to each college, without inquiring about students’ race categories? Surely every worthwhile college will have various applicants from various groups, and will admit various applicants from various groups.</p>
<p>Just focusing on the color of skin of an applicant is wrong. There are plenty of black applicants who have more money and a better life than I do. Do they deserve to get into better schools than I do because they are black? This is the wrong way of removing poverty. </p>
<p>A better idea might be to track down the under-performing schools, and admit students on a special basis in certain zip codes that are predominantly poor.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061540656-post660.html]#660[/url]”>quote</a> Can somebody explain to me… (a legitimate inquiry, I’m surprised I’ve never asked this)</p>
<p>…how eliminating the race/ethnicity box on will contribute to a “post-racial” society?..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. Ultimately, as has been [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059718729-post172.html]advocated[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1059718729-post172.html]advocated[/url</a>], formation of future generations by ‘race’-inconscious individuals results in a true “post-racial” society; as opposed to the veneer of “diversity” many promote.</p>
<p>So, would you argue that spending four years on a college campus learning and growing with people of all different groups, experiencing first hand the diversity within those groups and how insignificant it is in determining intelligence or personality traits, would you argue that this scenario makes less progress to a post-racial society (a society in which race does not impact the way in which people see each other), than the government simply not asking about it? </p>
<p>I agree that one step in the journey to a post-racial society includes the government ceasing to acknowledge race, I just disagree that taking that step completely out of order makes any progress at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t been to college yet, right? I would like college environments (and, for that matter, workplaces for young people who don’t attend college) to generally offer that degree of interaction and that degree of diversity within each ethnic group present. I’m curious, however, how many colleges are achieving that desirable goal by current policies. What are some good examples of colleges that offer environments like that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I wrote in #664, if this scenario arose from artificially creating “diversity,” then yes, I would argue that compared to removing the race / ethnicity question, your scenario does not advance the ideal of a post-racial society as well. In order to show people that race is not relevant, your way requires that race first be relevant. I think that is problematic.</p>
<p>A while ago I asked what high school students could to to learn to appreciate people from a variety of ethnic groups. I have another question now: what are examples of colleges that today have a great deal of interaction among students of all ethnic groups and that help all students appreciate the full diversity of people who happen to be categorized as belonging to the same ethnic group?</p>
<p>I have a theory</p>
<p>If everyone that is not an under represented minority refuses to put their race on their applications and eventually only URMs would put their race on their applications, then the colleges would technically be only composed of those said URM because they are only allowed to use data that is self reported. So that would be the end of race based affirmative action, most likely causing colleges to find other ways to promote diversity that I think would far more progressive. They should look at people in the context of their situations, if someone is black but grew up in a fabulously wealthy household he needs less of a boost then a white person who grew up with a drug addict father whose parents divorced. Anyway just my thoughts…</p>
<p>I think it has been researched that not all hispanics are equal URMs. It is well-known that Puerto Rican and Mexican are the two with the most pull, hence why these two have their own check-off boxes on the common app. I suppose it is true that there is no way we can find out for sure which one has the most pull.</p>
<p>ikir07: I never said you were angry he got admitted. However, I can’t help but interpret your initial post as saying that he had an unfair advantage by merit of being black. Like I said in my post: “I am just raising the question because you make it sound like this student shouldn’t have been offered a place at Carnegie Mellon.” We can end our discussion there. </p>
<p>I guess I am frustrated by multiple posters on CC who infer that URM applicants somehow are less deserving of places at elite institutions because of a perception that their stats are inferior and they get in because of their ethnic background, or that if all else is equal, URM applicants will be chosen over whites and Asians. I am not saying that affirmative action doesn’t exist, I’m just reacting against the sentiment that it is unfair. If everyone in this country was born on equal footing, affirmative actions wouldn’t be necessary, but they aren’t. </p>
<p>Living in a very white state, I see a lot of poverty among white people and I often wish that affirmative action policies would be designed to explicitly also include socio-economical factors. However, in reality most poor white kids who want to go to college fall under the first generation umbrella. The main issue is that kids who grow up in poverty in this country are afforded very few opportunities to succeed in society. </p>
<p>The few fighters who excel despite poor conditions deserve a helping hand on the way. Their test scores and grades are not lower because they’re less intelligent or capable of doing excellent work, their stats suffer from lack of resources, poor schools, poor teachers, uninspired classmates, etc. The majority of people–white or black–who grow up under such conditions will never go to college. After all, less than 40 percent of Americans even go on to attain a four-year college degree. Is it not right to compromise the college acceptance for an outstanding middle class student who will surely be fine anyway in order to help a student with a poorer record due to a poorer educational experience realize his or her full potential? Breaking down the class divide in the U.S. begins with education and I think this validates affirmative action. It’s not great and there are many loopholes, but overall I believe we would be worse off without it. My $0.02</p>