Reply to How often do you think applicants lie about their race?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "How often do you think applicants lie about their race?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone who lies about their race or anything else on a college application or job application or whatever is giving up way more than they're gaining. Why would anyone give up their integrity for ANY reason, let alone one that will make no difference in their future happiness or success?[/quote]

Colleges should not discriminate based on race in the first place.
That's evil.[/quote]

So basically, "I don't like what I perceive someone else to be doing, so I can do whatever I want in response."

That kind of rationale has led to all sorts of evil through the ages.[/quote]

Whereas “others do evil to me but I do nothing in response” only leads to good outcomes for the victims. 🙄[/quote]

Fair point. What I should have said is that you're wrong about colleges discriminating on the basis of race, if you're defining 'discriminating' as deliberate exclusion. There are no evil plans being executed by admissions offices.[/quote]

So discrimination is totally fine if it’s the obvious byproduct of a policy? [/quote]

'Discrimination' is used in different ways by different people and in different situations. If you're using the word to mean deliberate exclusion of a group of people by college admissions offices, then you're wrong. To be more specific, fewer people of one race being admitted to a college as a byproduct of another race being given some preference due to horrific mistreatment historically is not a racist policy. It's the natural outcome in a zero-sum game.

It's moot anyway. Not being admitted to any given college isn't doing anyone any harm. The slightly less selective college they get into is just as capable of giving them the education they need.[/quote]

You are probably not following the Supreme Court case.
College admissions offices are deliberately lowering percentage of a group of people with bullshit insulting scores on kindness courage likability.

It's the 21st century.  We don't need racism in the academic fields.  
[/quote]

Regardless of what SCOTUS decides, what is happening is not 'racism'. For it to be racism, there would have to be hundreds of people in an admissions office colluding to exclude a specific group with every one of them capable of keeping the secret and none of them having the spine to go public. And those admissions offices include people of all races and backgrounds, and have people on staff whose job it is to ensure racism doesn't happen. And actually, it's thousands of people who would have to be keeping the secret, because while Harvard and UNC are named in lawsuits, the same thing is happening at all universities. Affirmative action may be found to be unconstitutional by this very biased court, but it is not a racist policy.[/quote]

It is absolutely possible, and even probable, that what we are seeing is racism. Yes, hundreds of people in admissions offices can definitely have a racist bias against Asians. We see it here in this forum all the time - the attitude that Asians are just boring grade-grubbers and exam-crammers. Admissions officers are very much in the DCUM demographic and I venture to guess that they think the same way.

Furthermore, you are ignoring unconscious bias and systemic racism. Don't you believe those are actual things? I bet that if you do, you think they only operate against blacks, but it is very obvious they operate against Asians in this case.

Last but not least, the courts have found in other cases that it [i]doesn't even matter[/i] if there isn't a conscious, racist conspiracy. If your practices have a disproportionately adverse effect on a minority even though your rules are formally race-neutral then you are discriminating by race and that is wrong. And there is no doubt that current admissions practices have a disproportionately adverse effect on Asians.[/quote]

"If your practices have a disproportionately adverse effect on a minority even though your rules are formally race-neutral then you are discriminating by race and that is wrong. And there is no doubt that current admissions practices have a disproportionately adverse effect on Asians."

So what you propose we do is change it so that admission practices instead have a disproportionately adverse effect on blacks? Despite the Civil Rights Act, blacks have been stuck with sub-par educational opportunities for centuries when compared to other races. The likelihood that an extremely capable black student won't have access to a superior high school education (and before) is significantly higher than it is for other races. So you want to base college admission solely on numbers and not take any of that into account?[/quote]

Right now, blacks are admitted to universities that would not admit a non-black student with the same profile - that is, they are disproportionately advantaged. Meanwhile, Asians are denied admission to universities that would admit a non-Asian student with the same profile - that is, they are disproportionately disadvantaged. If you just "let the chips fall where they may" - do not take race into account - then blacks will lose their disproportionate advantage and Asians will lose their disproportionate disadvantage. Removing the artificial black advantage would not create a "disproportionately adverse" effect on blacks - they'd simply have to go to the schools that fit their numbers. This is not a form of adversity, that's the way the system should work.

"So you want to base college admission solely on numbers and not take any of that into account?" -- Yes. The system right now is deeply stupid and dishonest, and the only way to eliminate and stop the games that both applicants and colleges are playing is to take race off the table.[/quote]

It’s hardly dishonest. They’re completely transparent about what they are doing. You just don’t like what they do. You think college admissions is some reward for what a student achieves in high school. It’s not nor has it ever been that way. You don’t seem to have a problem with legacy, athletics, donors or any of the other factors they consider. Picking on URMs simply demonstrates you don’t like URMs. [/quote]

+1. I would lump URM status, child or a donor, and legacy in the same group. You were born that way. Although I really think athletics are in different bucket because you need to work to be a good athlete like you need to work to be a good musician or a good artist or a good debater. It's talent, but also a lot of work. Dismantling AA is more likely to undercut legacy preference and then the only people who benefit are the children and grandchildren of large donors, so basically everyone loses. [/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