<p>I think your opinion on lack of or existence of imbalance of socioeconomic imbalance is relevant because I believe it is coloring your view of AA (assuming it exists - please show me some data if you have any) in a negative light. As much of a numbers guy as you portray yourself, they all seem to be in support of some pretty deeply held opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I cite the Claremont McKenna matches of 2007…almost entirely URM. There are enough URMs in the pool of applicants if that’s who they want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it does result, as you’ve pointed out with small number of high SAT black scorers, in a less culturally diverse class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re in New York?</p>
<p>Interesting article:</p>
<p>[The</a> New York Times > Log In](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30affirmative-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3]The”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30affirmative-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3)</p>
<p>the ironic thing is that black kids used to wish they were white so they eouldn’t be discriminated against.</p>
<p>nowadays, however, white kids wish they were black so their chances of getting into selective schools will be increased dramatically.</p>
<p>ironic, huh?</p>
<p>^The white kids only want to be black when it’s convenient. </p>
<p>So really, nothing’s changed.</p>
<p>It is EXTREMELY convenient. Your degree follows you around for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>White kids get really really jealous when they see their rich, less academically qualified peers get into Ivies because of their dark skin color while the whites get rejected.</p>
<p>People of all color get rejected at the ivies. And who says a URM has significantly lower scores?</p>
<p>Tyler09 has it right.</p>
<p>^^^thank you. That’s the same thing I was thinking.</p>
<p>Re #996</p>
<p>To my knowledge, the concept of negative action was first set forth by Jerry Kang, a law professor at UCLA. He defined it as treating Asian applicants worse than equally qualified white applicants. While recognizing that treating underrepresented students better than non-protected students may be justifiable, he strongly denounced negative action as indefensible.</p>
<p>Where I differ with Professor Kang is that I believe treating students better than other equally qualified students on the basis of race is also inexcusable.</p>
<p>Re #998 and #999</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youre absolutely right that there are enough URMs in the pool of applicants if thats who they want. The question then becomes, do the URMs want Pomona?</p>
<p>As Ive said, Pomona doesnt get all the URMs they admit. If a URM ranked another school higher than Pomona on his list, then Pomona wont get him; the other school will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Will it? Your conclusion is true only if we have numbers-only admissions, which I have repeatedly said that I do not support. If underrepresented minority students really are more interesting and greater contributors to diversity than potentially higher-scoring non-protected students, then both will still show up on the application even if race isnt shown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, please, you have got to be joking.</p>
<p>Nobody says that a URM has significantly lower scores. There are high-scoring under-represented minority students. The question is, how many of them are there?</p>
<p>Im not sure if you can read [url=<a href=“http://www.jstor.org/pss/2678851]this[/url”>How the Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT and the ACT Tests Restrict Educational Opportunities for Black Students at the Nation's Most Prestigious Colleges and Universities on JSTOR]this[/url</a>]. If you cant, it says that in 2000, only 746 black students scored 700 or higher on the SAT math portion, and only 914 scored 700 or higher on the SAT verbal portion.</p>
<p>theendusputrid implied it. So, if a student has a 740 math and a 690 verbal, you would consider that “significantly lower”?</p>
<p>As to minorities being rejected at ivies, I know it to be true. Even with a very high score. They can only take a limited number of people. No one has a magic ticket.</p>
<p>MattsMomFL: Of course you, and everyone else, would prefer cultural and racial diversity. Who wouldn’t? But I’m sure we would both prefer to be rich, too, which may easily be achieved by holding up a bank; nevertheless, we refrain from robbing the bank because it is illegal and immoral. This is perhaps an extreme example but still a valid comparison if you believe, as I do, that AA is racial discrimination and therefore illegal under the 14th Amendment.</p>
<p>But if your position is that holistic admissions is no longer “holistic” with the removal of the race factor, then we will have to agree to disagree as this narrow interpretation of the word “holistic” makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you point out the high percentage of Asians accepted in proportion to overall population percentage. I ask you: should a thusly “overrepresented” group be penalized for the behavior of the group rather than of the individual?</p>
<p>You have said (#999) that removing race from the holistic process would result in a less culturally diverse class. Thus, without relaxed standards (regardless of whether relaxing standards affects final outcome, and I speak of “standards” in a holistic manner), blacks would be even more underrepresented, correct? This says, to me, that we need to address the underlying reasons for their overall lagging in excellence (not necessarily academic achievement but overall excellence, “spark,” whatever it is that attracts elite colleges’ attention) rather than automatically granting them a helping hand because they were born into a certain ethnicity or with a certain skin color.</p>
<p>twomules: Certainly URMs can be rejected from top schools even with high stats. Stats are not everything. But a well-rounded, intellectually curious, high-scoring URM is practically a lock–while the same well-rounded, intellectually curious white or Asian student has merely a feasible but long shot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite disagreeing with your conclusion, I think that this is the most clear statement of your viewpoint I have seen made, and I want to acknowledge that I understand the logic behind it and believe it is a strong argument. </p>
<p>However, then you relapse to using words like “penalize” and “lock” and “long shot”, all of which are terms that only exist in the realm of chances threads on CC. </p>
<p>Also you mention that schools have to “relax their standards” and then assert that this is true regardless of the final outcome. I call that statement hypocritical. The reason you have “standards” is to create a certain outcome. If your outcome does not change you have not “relaxed your standards”, it simply means that the so-called standards you had in the first place were superfluous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pomona.edu/Admissions/otherinformation/classprofiles/2012profile.pdf[/url]”>http://www.pomona.edu/Admissions/otherinformation/classprofiles/2012profile.pdf</a></p>
<p>Keilexandra & Fabrizio</p>
<p>I recognize you guys are really angry about blacks getting into top schools and “more qualified” Asians being rejected. I’m really tired of arguing this (this has been my central activity today, and that’s enough), and looking at your past threads it does seem as though you both have made this a central posting theme. I don’t think we’re ever going to reach a consensus, so let me just suggest this: </p>
<p>Jews in a response to quotas opened Brandeis. Catholics opened up universities all over the country with support of the Catholic Church. You’re both obviously passionate about this. Rather than spending countless hours debating each and every poster one by one by one on this board who don’t agree with you, why not focus your energies on beginning your own school. Find out if someone somewhere is already working on this. Contribute your energies in a positive manner so that Asians who come after you will have an “Asian” school they can apply to and be assured of an acceptance. It will also make an excellent extra-curricular for when it comes time to apply for grad school/Rhodes Scholar/Fulbright, etc</p>
<p>Re #1010</p>
<p>First, I don’t consider it significantly lower. Second, you clearly are not familiar with Espenshade and Chung’s 2005 paper. If you were, you would know that the fifty point figure refers to the disadvantage Asians face when compared to equally qualified white applicants, not when compared to equally qualified “under-represented” minority applicants.</p>
<p>I never said that being a “under-represented” minority is a guarantee of admission. Please do not straw man me.</p>
<p>Fabrizio - Perhaps I misunderstood your “oh, please, you have got to be joking”. I took it as saying you disagreed with me.</p>
<p>I never said that you said it. It gets a little confusing keeping track of the participants.</p>