Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
College and University Discussion
Reply to "Race in college admissions is back in front of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Oct. 31 (Monday)"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Harvard has 6.56% Black students Yale has 6.53% Black students Princeton has 10% Black students (undergrad) Can someone please explain to me how this is unacceptable to folks? Would y'all prefer those percentages be 0%?? https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvard-university#:~:text=The%20enrolled%20student%20population%20at%20Harvard%20University%20is%2039.7%25%20White,Hawaiian%20or%20Other%20Pacific%20Islanders. https://datausa.io/profile/university/yale-university https://inclusive.princeton.edu/about/demographics[/quote] I honestly don't care whether those student bodies are 30% black or 3% black, so long as the admissions factors are race-neutral. I don't want a college excluding [b][i]or including[/b][/i] anyone because of the color of their skin.[/quote] Most people who say this mean they want a way to game admissions in their favor. The last thing they want is a fair process.[/quote] Nothing in elite private college admissions is "fair." They are the "sellers" here and will pick whomever they want to shape a class.[/quote] The North Carolina portion of the case is the much more important part. State schools don't have the resources to carefully curate a class- they have to be formulaic. Eliminating race from the formula will change the composition of the student body. Cal is just now getting back to where they were prior to AA being banned in California and they are spending a fortune to get there. States where it is banned that haven't gone that route have see African American enrollment plummet. Do you really think the NC legislature will let UNC do the spend? What about Wisconsin or Ohio? [/quote] Good point/ questions. UNC which was founded in 1789 didn't admit blacks at Chapel Hill until 1954 ( Brown vs Board of Education), so blacks were shut out for generations. Blacks are 22% of the North Carolina population, but are 8% of UNC Chapel Hill student population. Ohio black population to Ohio State is 12% vs 7%. The University of Wisconsin' s black percentage has consistently been below 3% for years. The numbers will probably drop 2 percent or so. Wisconsin numbers are already pretty low. I think UVA will drop a little. However, I think a school like UMD College Park will maintain its diversity numbers, particularly for blacks. [/quote] This might raise other issues. If, like 40 years ago, particularly in states with large minority populations, minority tax payers are supporting state universities that enroll only tiny numbers of minority students, would that be grounds for a class action suit? I’m not asking how the current Supreme Court might handle it — just if there would be grounds. I’m thinking about UNC Chapel Hill. I’m also wondering if a good counter argument would be that other UNC schools are available and students who want spots will get them somewhere in the UNC system. I grew up in DC and went to college out of state — so I’m not familiar with the ways that state systems of higher education work. [/quote] Don’t think you would want to take that tack. Based on tax returns, blacks in the US contribute significantly less in taxes vs. the cost of services they receive, so in actuality minority tax payers probably didn’t support state universities. I don’t think access to things like public education should be proportional to taxes paid. [/quote] I didn’t use the word “proportional “ — you did, so that’s your “tack”, not mine. I simply said that a people who are required to pay taxes are — are being excluded from a resource that is supported by taxes. It stands out to me too, that as the group is delineated by race, it’s really been less than 50 years of access to this resource in the first place. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics