Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Okay, I've been looking at the Cornell app at Embark, and I've found a loophole. I don't know if I want to use it or not (but hey, Cornell isn't my #1 or 2) but I thought I'd see what you think.

This is the Cornell App definition of Black/African American

"Black/African American
A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa or the Caribbean Islands."

Everyone has origins in the black racial groups of Africa! That's where the first humans came from! Or am I completely wrong, AP Human Geography kids?

I know it's immoral, but what do you guys think? I mean, it would be lying if I don't put that down, since it says "check all that apply."

Right?


"I might as well stir some. It is Christmas-time."

By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Depends on who you ask...

If you ask a fervent Christian, I think they would disagree...

By Itempest (Itempest) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit

It's really not a loophole. They don't intend for you to go back thousands of centuries to decide your ancestry. That way, I'm related to the very first human being on earth, and so are you.

Say, for example, you claim to be black and you get in; they find out you aren't and rescind admission; that happens to be the only place you got into and so you want to go, but now can't. You sue. Things could get ugly. You're a prospective Cornell applicant, and Ivy-league prospects are supposed to be smart - they'll expect you to understand what they mean - no need to get extremely technical on their definitions.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 06:25 pm: Edit

so it does apply to me, doesn't it.

anyone else care to comment? it's an interesting concept.

By Kode (Kode) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit

If anyone in your tracable history is black, then consider it applicable. If you intend on using the above "loophole" then do so at your own risk.

By Dimples247 (Dimples247) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Interesting thinking, but I don't know that adcoms worried about minority %s would be amused. Its kind of like the debate over whether we should obey the "spirit" or the "letter" of the law (or in this case, application question). Personally, I wouldn't try it and I wouldn't have to try to explain it to a bunch of admissions officers.

By I1lmatics (I1lmatics) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:19 pm: Edit

According to your logic then you also have legacy, since when all stem from the same roots. It's not a loop hole its common sense and if you don't have enough to realize they aren't talking about all the way back to B.C times then why would you even apply to an ivy league

By Kyle (Kyle) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:22 pm: Edit

Simply checking "black" does not mean anything. You must talk about how your identity and our background. And while checking the wrong box may be questionable, falsifying an entire essay to show your hardships as an "under-represented minority" is truly immoral.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:23 pm: Edit

i'm not getting extremely technical; i'm trying to be completely honest. using their definition, which i admit is flawed, i fall under the category of black/african-american. this is the ivy league, and i realize this contradicts what the application is trying to say, but is this true or not?

oh, and checking the box can account for urm status. i can't say that for all colleges, but i believe most do not require you to discuss your life as an under represented minority in your essay.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:28 pm: Edit

legacy doesn't apply, because there are rules for that (father, grandfather, etc etc.) but the application does not distinguish the amount of asian or black or latino that you need to be mark it. the same application says for mexican americans, if you consider yourself to be of that culture (not just race) then you can check the box. i don't plan on doing this, but if you've grown up as a white kid in san diego in a primarily spanish-speaking neighborhood, and consider yourself to act (partially) under their culture, then it is a possibility for you.

By Andrey1225 (Andrey1225) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit

this is very naive and childish.

the schools know what they're doing and know what they wrote, its silly to assume that you can classify yourself as black because of a simple interpretation (all be it wrong interpretation) of a definition. personally, i identify myself as having "origins" in Eastern Europe and not Africa; however, if you truly feel you're an African and a proud black member of society then go ahead and put it down. but know its not funny and the issue of race is not a joke to colleges: they take it very seriously and if you lie or intentionally try to "beat the system" you will get punished.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:33 pm: Edit

it's not lying. i have east european origins too, but that doesn't mean that those who i descended from in poland didn't come from africa somewhere in history. here's the definition of "origin":

1: ANCESTRY, PARENTAGE
2 a : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives ; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another

in no literal way would me marking the box be a falsification. nor would i ever consider this a joke; i take the college application very seriously. i don't consider myself a "black member of society", but that's not what the application is asking. they are asking for all ethnicities which apply to me. it's not like I would only mark black, and wouldn't put white. it asks for "all that apply."

i'm not even trying to cheat the system, i'm trying to achieve the full truth. and the full truth under their definition is that i am african-american.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

i don't think this is a serious discussion. i don't think anyone in their right mind would want to falsify this sort of information.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:41 pm: Edit

lucky it's not falsifying anything, huh?

By Awe02 (Awe02) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 07:59 pm: Edit

i do world history and currently there are 2 theories, one out of Africa Model which what you are referring to. there is also the multiregional theory which suggests that humans developed simultaneously in different parts of the world. one model is supported by fossils, the other is supported by DNA. so chances are that even your earliest ancestors didnt come from africa.

but aside from the facts its an incredibly stupid thing to ask

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:03 pm: Edit

oh, so the indo-europeans developed in europe? that's contrary to what i've been taught. i was always told that way way early in human history, humans migrated out of africa, through egypt, babylon, etc. (cradle of civilization) and eventually crept throughout the lands bordering the mediterranean.

but aside from that, the multiregional theary is dna-based, right?

By Nyapplicant (Nyapplicant) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit

african-american..

your african origins are of millions of years before america was founded. If the box simply said african, this may be a plausable argument, but there is a big difference between being an african, and being an african american. I know your definition puts "african american" in the same column as black, but without dictionary definitions, if you went to ghana and asked someone what their race was, they would say african -- how the hell would they have anything to do with america?

thanks for playing.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:08 pm: Edit

i'm not looking it up on the dictionary, it says so right on the application. it's not "my definition", as you proclaim. i'm just reporting what the cornell application states. and besides, the application never details what constituted origins, so any origin would apply.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:10 pm: Edit

and it's black/african-american, the slash meaning "or". (you can tell this because the definition refers to those of caribbean descent, as well as african.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:14 pm: Edit

i think there is a flaw in your logic. while all living people have ancestral origins in africa, the early homo sapiens cannot be classified as a black racial group, since they did not resemble any racial group that is around today.

By Itempest (Itempest) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Why don't you just check every single box there?

I'm sure you've "originated" from every single race.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:21 pm: Edit

hmm... good point.

but wouldn't their skin have been dark as well, considering they lived in the same area as modern humans do now? consider their skin tone, which was developed for geographic reasons. that same pigmentation would have developed in the same way, assuming a relative ceteris parabus (can't spell today)
and so it was a "black racial group" from africa, they just aren't around now. that doesn't make them any less of a racial group.

you couldn't really check all of the boxes. is says all that apply, but as far as i know i don't have any native american/asian/latino blood in me. i could be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge they do not apply. the ethnicity above, however, does.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:26 pm: Edit

based on other features that they had that were not typical of black racial groups, you could probably argue that they in one way or another resembled every other racial group.

i feel so silly continuing this conversation.

By Fenix (Fenix) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 08:29 pm: Edit

whatever just let this mofo say he's black see what cornell thinks he deserves what he's going to get

By Vulcano (Vulcano) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

The gradual decay and morphing of College Confidential into a "logos" of meaningless, absurd, and flat out stupid topics.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Merugo, here are two brilliant little nuggets I've found while I was either on CC OR not trying to find extremely tenuous loopholes to get my jealous and bitter white butt into college...

To steal a line from TheDad:

"Look up "denotation" vs. "connotation." The divergence pops up a lot. As a writer with respect for the English language, I have some sympathy for your strict definition; as a writer who sails the seas of contemporary usage, I say you're fighting a losing battle. Correction...a battle that has already been lost."

Well I'm not a writer per se, but you get the idea.

In summation (and to quote the Princess Bride):

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

To a certain extent (a very small one at that, mind you) I can see where you're coming from. In fact, awhile back, my very first question on this board was whether I should call my 15/16 white self "Native American." Well, when regarding all the issues, the decision was pretty clear. Though I may technically be able to call myself Native American, AA was not created for me, because I am more a part of a distinctly white culture, and though perhaps some of my ancestors faced discrimination and defamation because of their ethnicity and culture, I do not. But if you really do suffer discrimination all day every day because you are black, then by all means, check the "Black/African American" box.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:31 pm: Edit

so the point of the ethnicity section is to determine whether or not you've been discrimnated against. interesting. what about people who suffer discrimination because of the way their face is shaped, or the clothes they wear, or any characteristic of their person? where's their little box? i mean, i'm all for the equalization of races and trying to right wrongs, but to say that the only reason that ethnicity is on the application is to show the adcoms whether you've been discriminated against is complete lunacy.

pistolpete- you may not want to put down your native american heritage, but you still can. that's the thing: it still applies to you, and it is your choice to do it or not. that's the entire reason i created this thread, to offer a choice. sure, it's a loophole, and sure, it's not how cornell intended it to be, contrary to Andrey1225's belief. but what we have to realize is, just like your native american heritage can apply to you, my (and everyone's) african heritage can apply to them, if they so choose.

it is still the truth, and the application asks for all ethnicities that apply. since the definition refers to origins, then it most certainly affects you, me, and everyone, assuming the evolution of humans in africa, which is the most commonly accepted theory. sorry, Awe02.

what's interesting to me is that when I suggest the possibility that the application is flawed and could be used to someone's advantage, I am called a "mofo", "absurd", "naive", "childish" and the like. it's like dimples247 said, I am observing the letter of the law/application. i know it's old fashioned, like a strict interpretation of the constitution, but it is still a perfectly valid argument, contrary to the belief of some on this board.

my point is not that i'm trying to warp the system. i don't really care if i get into cornell or not; it's not my first choice school, i'm basically applying just to see if i could get in (yes, i know it's frivolous, but you only apply to college once.) what i'm trying to point out is that college admissions, once you reach a certain point, is almost a strategy game. past that point, you have to play with the cards you're given.

it would be wrong of you not to play your hardest in this game, because you only get one shot. you can cry all you want about how its abuse of the definition and how culture is all that ethnicity is about and bla bla bla. but the truth is that it does apply to me, and if the adcoms want to challenge me on it, bring it on. prove me wrong.

By Minnesoder (Minnesoder) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:34 pm: Edit

"i think there is a flaw in your logic. while all living people have ancestral origins in africa, the early homo sapiens cannot be classified as a black racial group, since they did not resemble any racial group that is around today."

precisely. further, racial groups are nothing more than *social constructs* and are invalid, biologically.

merugo: don't be stupid. and you're incorrect evolutionary assertions/ass-jabber are borderline racist (even though most likely unintentional) watch what you say, people have used many of your mistakes in the past, to incorrectly "prove" many things about many different people.

By Merugo (Merugo) on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 10:38 pm: Edit

how exactly is it racist to say that we all come from the same african-based biological ancestors? isn't segregating ourselves into different races/ethnicities on our college apps in and of itself racist?

i should just put "other: human"

haha.

oh, and furthermore, if racial groups are simply "social constructs," then it is subjective, and therefore to say i have origins in the "black racial groups of africa" would be perfectly valid (using your definition, of course).

out of curiosity, how is the implication that we all stem from the same genetic stock "ass jabber/ borderline racist" minnesoder? and when has that been misused? i am truly intrigued.