Will Admissions Officers pick up on clues in application regarding URM?

[Anonymous]

How are the uber-wealthy URMs, many of whom go to elite private schools in the DMV (we all know them), going to write essays talking about how disadvantaged they are? These are kids who have been getting into Ivies, etc., but I'm not sure they will be anymore. This is the group the USSC decision will impact most, not the first gen URMs or URMs at privates on financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students are allowed to say whatever they want to say in an essay. As far as I know, schools are fully entitled to ask applicants to voluntarily identify their race. Schools will easily—and appropriately—be able to give URMs a boost, if necessary. The decision provides a road map for colleges to follow. As a practical matter, little will change.

No, schools cannot do that per court decision. I don't know why you believe little will change. Read CA school system's failed effort.

Actually I think in the last year or two CA schools have definitely made changes that increase URM populations. They’ve eliminated standardized testing, and in the last admissions cycle clearly gave boosts to some heavily URM HSs. This mostly benefited Hispanics from what I remember.

This is true...the reports talking about how diverse the UCs are now, it's because of Hispanics. The number of black students at UCs is very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

Well, I am sorry if you feel that way but that's exactly how I feel. Asians have done nothing to blacks, owe nothing to blacks and I resent the fact that AA negatively affected Asian kids the most. It's like paying for lunch that you weren't even part of having. And paying it year after year. LOL

Klan-tastic!

Even Abraham Lincoln, after freeing slaves, felt blacks were repaid enough. This was more than 150 yrs ago. Since then, there has been more and more social programs to assist people in poverty. The only thing that these programs have done was to decimate black families with a high percentage of the black males in the prison. If it hasn't worked for a century and a half, another 150 yrs will not help. We need to make painful decisions to put everyone's butt in gear. We need to change tactics.

I'm Black with high stats kids. I'm not sure what the impact will be for DD who is in high school, but I'm not concerned because she will be fine no matter where she goes and has witnessed family members be successful with degrees from Harvard, Howard, and others.

The wealth gap that was created years ago due to racism still does impact communities. The tactics that our government used continues to cause damage.

What do you mean by put butts in gear?

This documentary does a great job explaining why the wealth gap began.

https://youtu.be/YvY3Ok6YpbU

[Anonymous]

The supreme court decision literally said, on page 39 paragraph 3, that NO proxies for race may be used if their effect is to make a preference for one race over another. So the short answer to this thread is that, no, admissions officers may not "pick up on clues" because it is unconstitutional and subject to additional litigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All you constitutional scholars should recognize that applicants still have their First Amendment rights. No one needs to "hint" anything.

Not at non-state schools.

[Anonymous]

Again, whether explicit indicators of race or implicit indicators, what has changed in this new ruling is that admissions officers may not use ANY indicator or proxy for race to provide favoritism to one race over another. This is dead in the water

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

Well, I am sorry if you feel that way but that's exactly how I feel. Asians have done nothing to blacks, owe nothing to blacks and I resent the fact that AA negatively affected Asian kids the most. It's like paying for lunch that you weren't even part of having. And paying it year after year. LOL

Klan-tastic!

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, whether explicit indicators of race or implicit indicators, what has changed in this new ruling is that admissions officers may not use ANY indicator or proxy for race to provide favoritism to one race over another. This is dead in the water

+100

Obey the Constitution of the United States or Leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

Well, I am sorry if you feel that way but that's exactly how I feel. Asians have done nothing to blacks, owe nothing to blacks and I resent the fact that AA negatively affected Asian kids the most. It's like paying for lunch that you weren't even part of having. And paying it year after year. LOL

Klan-tastic!

+10000

Lol, 10000 is the number of DMV votes the Dems are trying to buy with AA. And the people in the hood are falling for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The supreme court decision literally said, on page 39 paragraph 3, that NO proxies for race may be used if their effect is to make a preference for one race over another. So the short answer to this thread is that, no, admissions officers may not "pick up on clues" because it is unconstitutional and subject to additional litigation

So the SAT is now unconstitutional? SAT score is a pretty good proxy for race. It definitely “makes a preference for one race over another.”

The Court meant you can’t redline. It didn’t mean schools have to drop all admissions criteria that disproportionately favor members of particular groups.

[Anonymous]

Is ADLC also unconstitutional? It’s been proven to favor mostly white applicants…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is ADLC also unconstitutional? It’s been proven to favor mostly white applicants…

There's a lawsuit on that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

What I meant was when colleges claim that nothing will change, my suspicious mind says they will simply exaggerate the percentage of black students on their campus. That's their workaround.

As far as I know no colleges have claimed that. They all say they will continue to work to find a different path. But as AP article (link up-thread) reported, they have not identified a workaround. Many have tried, none found.

The one who claim nothing will change are some DCUM posters here. I think many of them are still in denial and, it appears, many don't read news.

I think OP's question is off. Ivies publicly claim they will continue to try to diversify. The reality is that there aren't that many black students to begin with. What they say publicly may not be what they do in private.

I don't doubt they will continue to try that. This decision just makes it more difficult. The fact you didn't see too many of URMs on campus doesn't necessary mean the school didn't try hard enough. It just means that, even w/ help of AA, there just aren't enough URM kids to select from.

Keep believing that, while Ling Ling gets rejected.

There are enough high stats URMs to get to the 5-6% average at elite colleges for Blacks, 7-8% for Hispanics, and 0 5% for Native Americans.

But Harvard is already 14-15% black acceptance rate. You mean they're going to go down?

Harvard is Harvard. 14-15% is above the 13% average. Great. It'll probably come down to 12-13%.

The 5-6% is the average for elite colleges- plural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think colleges already have a workaround in place, I did not see many URMs at my kid's ivy. Just walk around. This is admittedly a sample size of 1 ivy. However, I've not been able to verify published URM demographics.

Well, you will see significantly fewer URM kids in the future. Free gravy train is over.

You can feel how you want about AA but this kind of language “free gravy train” is really gross, after everything this nation has done to black people. You are not a good person.

Well, I am sorry if you feel that way but that's exactly how I feel. Asians have done nothing to blacks, owe nothing to blacks and I resent the fact that AA negatively affected Asian kids the most. It's like paying for lunch that you weren't even part of having. And paying it year after year. LOL

Klan-tastic!

+10000

Lol, 10000 is the number of DMV votes the Dems are trying to buy with AA. And the people in the hood are falling for it.

I don't even know what that means. Decision is out, what's there to buy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So which is it?

URMs are at a school because of AA? or
URMs are at a school because they are high stats?

Because the argument has been that URMs are unfairly thought by some people to be at a particular school because of AA and the counter to that had been NO, they are high stats and just happen to also be URM.

If they’re high stats, then it won’t make a difference one way or another if race gives a leg up and they no longer have to deal with people saying they only got in because of their race.

But this thread seems to think URM rates will totally drop without AA. So they really do only get in because of their race? Their stats are not actually high enough to get in otherwise? Then those people that said they only got in because of their race are right?

It can both. It's not mutually exclusive.

Ignorant people think that affirmative action means unqualified. False.

As intended, affirmative action means make a concerted effort to seek qualified URMs and provide the opportunity (look up definition of "affirmative ").

The elite colleges want qualified URMs. The detractors want to define what "merit" is really just by looking at one metric: the SAT/ ACT score. It's not Johnny has a 1500 and URM has a 1400 so URM is "unqualified." That not how it works under holistic admissions. Standardized testing in America was based on a racist ideology. Those scores shouldn't be the definitive factor. Plus, ALDCs can have lower scores but they are not used as scapegoats. The URM is.

Some people don't get it.