Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Well, that's never going to be true. Not here |
Anonymous
Blame it on affirmative action. - Justice Thomas |
Anonymous
It’s certainly an overstatement to say that “all” URMs got in because of a de facto point boost. “All” is always a dangerous position no matter what we’re discussing because everyone will find exceptions. However, it’s also highly misleading that it was simply a situation where “all things were equal and the school awarded the tie to the URM applicant” on *average*. That clearly wasn’t the case with the evidence in the Harvard case - the reality is that a substantial portion of the URM admissions did effectively give a point boost based on race in a led of itself. To this point, I also think that there’s a lot more nuance to this debate that are getting shouted down by the extremes on both sides. For instance, I don’t think that most people want elite college admissions to be based on simply GPA and test scores alone. I think most people (no matter where you fall on the political spectrum) have little issue with an elite athlete (or at least those outside of pure wealth proxy sports like sailing), top musician, or national debate champion effectively getting “extra points” in the admissions process. Heck, I don’t think that most people are bothered that someone from an economically-disadvantaged environment gets an extra point boost on their SAT score considering that SAT scores have a correlation with income. The thing is that Harvard did all of that… and it still wasn’t getting whatever they believed was their desired demographic outcome. (The University of California has openly been saying this for its own admissions as they’re prevented from considering race under state law.) As a result, they didn’t just boost up the points for URMs solely on the account of race, but then also systematically *lowered* the points for, in their minds, a “boring” minority group in the form of a completely subjective personality score assigned by the admissions office. Whether people support Affirmative Action or not, what Harvard did completely strained all credulity in their admissions process. If you switched the fact pattern of the Harvard personality score where URMs had scores lowered instead of Asians, it would clearly be called and unambiguously called racist. It really bothers me that many of my fellow liberals (and yes, I’m a total liberal that has been appalled by what the Supreme Court has done on abortion and LGBTQ rights) seem to either (a) be fine with this type of racism it because it’s furthering a part of a political agenda or (b) even worse, not even recognize that it’s racist at all in the first place. And that’s really the upshot - it was one thing to give a bit of a preference to certain demographic groups, but a completely other matter when a school needs to strain all credulity to where it is actively *downgrading* a minority group because even those initial preferences still weren’t enough for whatever vision the school had. I’m a believer in diversity goals as a general matter, but the way that Harvard in particular needed to downgrade another minority group in order to achieve such goals showed that schools can’t be trusted as implementing them in a way that effectively saying, “We’re worried that our school is too Asian.” |
Anonymous
Harvard touted an holistic evaluation method to evaluate applicants. The employers and the educated citizens of this country are employing the same holistic method to properly downgrade the watered-downed ivy degrees. |
Anonymous
Is the “inspiration” how many chose to Uncle Tom URMs? |
Anonymous
Nobody even knows what this means. Who is uncle tom |
Anonymous
Everyone knows / should know who Uncle Tom is. It's table stakes for even thinking about race this country. That said, also not sure PP makes any sense. |
Anonymous
I had to google that. Man... wow... PP went all the way back to 1852 to find an epithet. |
Anonymous
You may not, Whitey McWhiterson. But those who read U.S. lit staple Uncle Tom’s Cabin” do. |
Anonymous
If you had to google this you know 0 black people. |
Anonymous
1500 gives you the "right" to be admitted to a T20? What's this, the 1960s? There are thousands upon thousands of Asian/White kids with 1580+ that are not admitted at these schools.. just sayin' |
Anonymous
Wow, PP had to Google. In my days, we had to read that thick tome. Shows the education level of some DCUM posters. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I am not taking a position on the point, but if you don't know the reference to Uncle Tom you are not well educated on American History or Literature. And it does not simply "go all the way back" to 1852. It's been part of the American lexicon since then. |
Anonymous
That is now a banned book where I grew up... |