Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I have heard from several people that the admistions office at MIT is very racist, against whites. Supposedly you have a huge advantage if you apply as a minority student there. But anyway, one of my friends was deferred from MIT early action, and I don't understand how it was possible. He has a 4.0, a ton of AP's, including all of the AP sciences in maths (but he does take AP's in all subjects, including latin, english, and history), he is a great pianist and actor. But he is white. However, his cousin, who is about one fourth hispanic, got in, and she does not have near the stats that he has. Did I forget to mention that my friend has made it to the final 200 people for the national phsyics team for the second year in a row (about 800,000 participate). How can he get deferred while his cousin is accepted with out MIT being racist. I have heard that they have been getting sued for stuff like that recently. I know that they have a summer program, totally paid for by the university, that is only for minority students.

I just wanted to get some other people's thoughts about this

By Collegeguy (Collegeguy) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Racist is the incorrect term. Sponsoring a highly active affirmative action (affirmative preference, really) program is actually what they do.

By Neo (Neo) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Haha...

Oh, 1 white person didn't get in. MIT *must* be racist.

By Anonymouse (Anonymouse) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Asian and white males are overrepresented at MIT. A racially and sexually balanced class, to them, is a high priority, I suppose.
By the way, only 1400 people try out for the Physics Olympiad. Of course, these are enerally the cream of the crop, as they have to be nominated by their teacher.

By Andycapps (Andycapps) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Affirmative Action is just a form of reverse racism. It is easier to get in to MIT if one is a woman or a minority. As a white, middle class male I am going to have to deal with this unfairness for my whole life so I guess I should get used to it now. I did get accepted by the way, so I'm not just saying this becuase I'm mad about a rejection.

By Neo (Neo) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Oh yeah,

You're making up numbers and facts in order to stir up controversy. I don't like that.

1.

800,000 people applied for the national physics team? That's a rather high number, especially when you consider that only 1.4 million students take the SATs annually. If 1/2 of those people are also fond enough for Physics to try out for the national team...wait...that doesn't make sense.

The number is closer to 1400. Not anywhere *near* 800,000. That's your first strike.

2.

Your second is here: "I have heard that they have been getting sued for stuff like that recently."

Where exactly did you *hear* that? Was it at the same place where you heard 800,000 people tried out for the national U.S. physics team? Because this also sounds like B.S.

3.

Here's your third:

You have a history of starting inflammatory threads on AA, whee the sole purpose seems to be to instigate arguments. Perhaps you get some sort of twisted pleasure from watching bitter people on both sides attack each other -- I don't know. But the truth is, you've had locked threads before for trying this. Why do you persist?

http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/757/32225.html

http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/5/32227.html

http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/5/32273.html

Why do you make these threads every two months? Are you gloating? Trying to pick a fight? What is it exactly?

By Arthurdent (Arthurdent) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit

On the other hand, as a white male you will have an easier time if you are renting an apartment, being pulled over by a police officer, etc. Once people stop being racist we can end affirmative action.

By Neona (Neona) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Andycapps, do you just copy and paste your AA posts nowadays? Because this is almost exactly what you said exactly a week ago. To the day.

By Andycapps (Andycapps) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 04:29 pm:
As a white middle class male AA is, to me, the most unfair thing about all of my life, not just college admissions. I am going to get screwed my whole life though so I guess I should get used to it now.

http://www.collegeconfidential.com/discus/messages/5/54820.html#POST430986

There's the link. It's almost the exact same post. It's just as illogical...

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

"On the other hand, as a white male you will have an easier time if you are renting an apartment, being pulled over by a police officer, etc. Once people stop being racist we can end affirmative action."

Yep, sure do. Officer just doesn't bother giving me a ticket anymore, my rent goes down, etc, etc. Everyone should get a White Card (tm). You affirmative action supporters really need to get some STATISTICS to back your case, not vague accusations.

By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Reverse racism? Umm... oooookay.... yeah....

It's to fix past ills. As a middle class white male, you get pretty much any opportunity open to you. Blacks, hispanics, etc... have much lower average incomes. Women aren't even benefited by affirmative action, except maybe at MIT, so the men don't go insane. ;)

But this topic can't twirl into some disgusting ball of disent. So I'll stop with my arguments.

Tough luck for your friend Mr. Topic Creator, but you can't say that any particular person took his spot, or anything like that. That is absurd. People get rejected by MIT. Great people, it's a fact of life. I know a friend nearly as good as the one mentioned, asian, who was rejected. He moved on. He's not about to put the blame on minorities or others. MIT does accept more white and asians than the other minorities you know? Geez!

By Arthurdent (Arthurdent) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Evil_Robot,
I really don't have the time to go into this. However, I will say that a friend of mine did his Intel research project on this exact issue. (He was a semifinalist.) The results were pretty astounding.

By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

Ever see that Chris Rock sketch? On how not to get your *** beat by the police?

Bring a white friend.

That cracked me up! lol

Does racism still exist? Yes. "1991 broadcast of the ABC program PrimeTime Live: In a stunning fifteen-minute segment reporters and a camera crew followed two young men of equal education, cultural sophistication, level of apparent affluence, and so forth around St. Louis, a city where neither was known. The two differed in only a single respect: one was white, the other black. But that small difference turned out to mean everything. In a series of encounters with shoe salesmen, record-store employees, rental agents, landlords, employment agencies, taxicab drivers, and ordinary citizens, the black member of the pair was either ignored or given a special and suspicious attention. He was asked to pay more for the same goods or come up with a larger down payment for the same car, was turned away as a prospective tenant, was rejected as a prospective taxicab fare, was treated with contempt and irritation by clerks and bureaucrats, and in every way possible was made to feel inferior and unwanted."

By Sybbie719 (Sybbie719) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

My suggestion is to read MIT's common dat set so you can get a more accurate look of who got accepted during the alst academic year and the dispersion of grades. It is easy to cry racism why one is looking to their own limited frame of references and not looking at the facts.

One cannot assume that just because they did not get in that the school is racist when the number of whites admitted to MIT is more than the number of Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Internationals COMBINED.

You can read the common data set for MIT @
http://web.mit.edu/ir/cds/2003/cds2003.html

By Arthurdent (Arthurdent) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Sybbie719,
We know that MIT uses affirmative action (or is racist, if that's how you look at it) because they've said so themselves. They want a diverse class and therefore make it a little easier for women and minorities. Whether that's a good thing or not is an entirely separate issue.

By Sybbie719 (Sybbie719) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Arthurdent,

What constitues making it easier??

Because every single person does not come in sith a slew of 800's??

Last year 274 Asians were admitted along with 336 whites. Are you saying that they had it easier?

People are evaluated in the context of what is offered at their schoool. Once anyone gets in they will have to step up to the plate or go home.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

For MIT, its even better to be a female than a minority.

By Arthurdent (Arthurdent) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

First of all, for MIT's purposes, asians are not minorities. In fact, they may have an even harder time getting in than whites.

MIT first determines which students meet its academic standards. Because this pool is far higher than the number of slots, MIT then has to decide who from this pool to accept. One of the factors they use is race/gender. Thus a Hispanic person has a better chance than a white person, but no unqualified Hispanics will get in.

As a contrast, look at Caltech. MIT and Caltech have similar applicant pools. However, Caltech does not use race or gender as a factor at all. Caltech is 70% male and has considerably less ethnic diversity than MIT. It is reasonable that this difference is primarily the result of MIT's use of affirmative action.

By Dday2004 (Dday2004) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit

1. MIT uses affirmative action.
2. It is easier for women to get accepted than men and underrepresented minorities to get accepted than whites and Asians. Just because the mere number of Asians and whites accepted is higher, you can by no means infer that it is just as easy for them to be accepted than other racial groups. This is because many more of them apply to MIT than that of other races. Basically, you have to look at the number of people of a certain race that applied versus then number of that race that were accepted. Additionally, you have to look at the quality of applicants in each group. Only then will you see who it's easier for to gain admission.

By Subtrunks (Subtrunks) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit

My hispanic friend got into MIT with a 1240 SAT. Not ragging on AA or what not but that does not seem fair to some people on this board that definately show more iniciative.

By Papalemming (Papalemming) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit

International student from Venezuela (Hispanic), International Chemistry Olympiad bronze medallist.

= rejected

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

Please...

Life uses racial preferences which promote whites, if that is how you reason. Use affirmative action in college admissions and then be slapped by the reality that American society favors the white man?

Yeah. I guess you won't be happy until whites take even that away. Move over Rosa...racisim is alive and well, even among smart people.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit

So the best response is to fight rascism with more rascism?

Sounds like a good recipe...

We should try it with concepts like "murder" or "genocide" or just perhaps "war" and see how far it gets us.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit

No. The best tact would be to end the tyrany of the white majority first. I'm sure THAT would not fly.

But, it's okay to do that to URMs and women? Get real, there are other schools out there for white men who are interested in MIT. Hmmm...wait, I guess it is the only school...

the debate is about someone who needs to blame someone else for not getting in. Wait, he should have got in, he's white.

Yeah...more discrimination. That's it, that's the answer. Blame those who are not in a position of power.

Hmmm...

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit

Kick em when you hold the whip?

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit

"And when at last it is time for the transition from megacorporation to planetary government, from entrepreneur to emperor, it is then that the true genius of our strategy shall become apparent, for energy is the lifeblood of this society and when the chips are down he who controls the energy supply controls Planet. In former times the energy monopoly was called "The Power Company"; we intend to give this name an entirely new meaning."

A sad quote from your profile, even if it comes from a animated feature.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

Ah yes. The returning image of the white man holding the whip. The positions of power, privilege, and eternal satisfaction under the glorious WHITE ideal. It's just justice that THE MAN be put down so that all races can live in harmony. I wonder where I missed out on my free ticket to happiness, fame, fortune, etc?

You live in a fantasy world.

Let's look at two applicants in the real world. One is a middle-class Hispanic, a good student (but some less than decent marks), did fairly well on his SATs, some extracirricular involvement (but not time consuming) in community service and so forth. The other is a lower-class Asian, excellent student (probably valedictorian), scored nearly perfectly on her SATs, major extracirricular involvement with national involvement in sports and scientific research. By all objective standards, Student #2 deserves admission far more than Student #1. Then why is student #1 admitted while student #2 is not?

Not even the Supreme Court holds your opinion. In Bollinger v. Gratz the argument was for diversity rather than equality which I can respect but disagree with.

And I really would appreciate it if you would stop using ad hominem like attacks. I am not involved in keeping minority students down. I have friends of all races. I'm not "cracking the whip" or "beating down on the backs of the oppressed".

Oh, and I just want to quote something I found heavily ironic:
"Yeah...more discrimination. That's it, that's the answer."

According to you, it is. Or, if you'd like to put it alternatively, the ends justify the means. Are you willing to live with that?

Let me remind you of the slogan emblazoned outside of the United States Supreme Court, embodied in the 14th amendment to the Constitution: "Equal Justice Under Law".

"A sad quote from your profile, even if it comes from a animated feature."

My apologies for not being able to recognize economic realities. You're not even close on where it's from.

Now can we keep this civil?

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:56 am: Edit

Why do anti-AA people always use the example of the low-scoring hispanic and the high-scoring asian as if that's how all asians and hispanics score?

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

Because on averages, it is how the scores work out.

Or would you like me to find the College Board statistics that prove that upper class blacks don't score as well on the SAT as lower class Asians?

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:04 am: Edit

Oh, and just for the record, I'd like to say that I'm in favor of socioeconomic affirmative action. I don't expect someone from Compton High to be compared to someone from Andover on the same playing field.

What I disagree with is when there are two poor kids on the block and the poor minority kid is chosen over the poor white kid. I don't see the difference between the two, legally and opportunity-wise.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit

Evil...

That's from Monsters, Inc.

As for the rest... I too have friends who are URMs.

I am not living in a fantasy world.

As for the irony....it was SUPPOSED to be, as well as sarcastic--to mimic if you will.

And, yes, of course I am willing to live with that because I usually, in most instances, have an edge because I look the way I do. Perhaps not in HI where the majority is asian, but here in the Continental US.

Also, let me remind you...The Constitution is not static. Of course things change. Equal protection is a defense used by the status quo. It was used to protect Jim Crow laws for a while, to keep blacks from going to schools with whites, etc...

As for UMichigan, it was the use of a point system, not the use of race as a deciding factor that they took exception too. Look at the grad school case also.


Yes, in a case where whites used laws to keep down minorities until the late 20th century, the ends justify the means. Like attacking AA, instead of the disparity in primary and secondary education. It is you who is mistaken. Your end, in gaining admission to schools like MIT is the END. The MEANS for you, are to treat everyone equally DISPITE how we treat minorities in primary and secondary schools, in housing, jobs, etc...

If there was no racism it would be one thing (I'd then agree with you), but that is not the case in modern America. To do away with looking at race or ethnicity is to ignore the harsh realities of American life as experienced by our minority population.

Rob.

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit

In response to EC's last post...

But that's not how it happens! Admissions directors don't go about comparing poor minorities and poor whites simply so they can take pleasure in rejecting the poor whites and admitting the poor URMs. It doesn't work that way.

And again, US schools care about diversity as well as academics. In other words, they prepare you for the real world -- a world where you'll be expected to work in environments that include people other than whites and asians. This isn't to say that schools will go out of their way to accept URMs over non-URMs. Look at college stats. The percentage of URMs in colleges is still far lower than the percentage of non-URMs in college relative to pop. composition. That's why they're called URMs. It doesn't mean that there are more URMs than non-URMs in schools.

In MIT, the white students number approx. 55-60%.
The asians number approx. 33%
The african-americans number approx. 6%
The hispanics approximate <6%
The native american pop. numbers approx. <2%.

Notice that whites and asians add up to approx. 9 out of every 10 students at MIT? You'd think with all the URMs nabbing slots that 'rightfully belonged' to 'better-qualified' non-URMs, the URM percentages would be well into the majority. Why aren't they?

Because it doesn't work that way.

In other words, URMs aren't "taking your spot" when you don't get in anymore than aliens are. The fact is, if you can't get in, it's because you weren't what the adcoms wanted. It's as simple as that. In fact, the only thing simpler than accepting the truth is implying instead that "some damn (insert appropriate URM) took my spot in (insert prestigious school here)."

By Culovv (Culovv) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

I will be the first one to go to college in my family, my parents are pushing for me to go to a jc/local uni, no one gives a crap about my grades other than myself, and people bitch if i stay in my room studying for more than 30 minutes. Since this is how it tends to be for most first generation hispanics, we deserve a boost if we must be compared to the kids who grew up in a culture that forces education. I don't feel the same way about a kid who is 1/8 hispanic with yale educated parents and has never spoken a word of Spanish in his life.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:34 am: Edit

BTW...Law and Justice are not the same. We are urged to be just because it is forward thinking, while laws and statues are conservative in nature, and look to what has happend, or asked to resolve a particular question. Our legal system is meant to answer the questions put before it. The body of law is a structure, a minimum.

You need both to have a reasoned debate. I react to your bias with my bias. Not very adult, but I'm tired of people, who happen to be white, bemoan the fact that they did not get into a particular school--not because the adcoms made a decision--but because of URMs. That is unfair.

If you want a reasoned debate about adcoms favoring certain URMs, or women....okay. But, this thread, like almost all AA threads are started with...'I applied...I got rejected...must be URMs...'

What that seems to be is looking for support of being unjustly discriminated against, never mind that most URMs face that on a daily basis. I don't mind comizerating about the process, but getting validation through putting down women and URMs is unfair at best.

Just my 2 cents.
Rob.

By Culovv (Culovv) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit

Bjturlington:

Good post. Screw Yale... go to Reed.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0198781/quotes
Nope, not Monsters Inc. Try again. The quick association with "power" threw you off, huh? Have you ever actually seen the film? Nothing to do with my quote, whatsoever. The quote is actually from Alpha Centauri, a futuristic vision of humanity on another world.

If you're willing to accept "the ends justify the means" without reservation, ethically speaking, there's nothing I can do to help you, other than pointing to the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. Or that that doctrine has led to some of the worst atrocities humanity has ever seen.

"Equal protection is a defense used by the status quo."

Um, hate to break this to you, but even in 1898 it wasn't used that way. The laws you reference were trying to GET AROUND the Constitution's wording by seperating blacks and whites and providing, quote, equal rights. They were struck down by this very amendment, which should be telling to you. And c'mon, we live in 2004, not 1898.

"As for UMichigan, it was the use of a point system, not the use of race as a deciding factor that they took exception too. Look at the grad school case also."

Please point out the difference between using a quota system and giving "preferences" (a soft quota system) to races, in terms of admissions outcomes. I see none.

"Yes, in a case where whites used laws to keep down minorities until the late 20th century, the ends justify the means.

Let me try a similar version of this argument: "Yes, in a case where Germans used laws to kill and persecute Jews until the mid 20th century, the ends justify the means for the Jews to kill and persecute them right back."
It's the old an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind argument.

"Like attacking AA, instead of the disparity in primary and secondary education. It is you who is mistaken. Your end, in gaining admission to schools like MIT is the END. The MEANS for you, are to treat everyone equally DISPITE how we treat minorities in primary and secondary schools, in housing, jobs, etc..."

But you see, that is exactly the problem. So, exactly why do we have AA instead of fixing our primary and secondary education? It's like putting a finger in a dyke in a bridge. I'm pointing out that AA is a broken and unfair system that solves nothing, and the money, hurt feelings, and general sense of unfairness that goes along with it have no place in an American educational meritocracy that is trying to better itself.

"If there was no racism it would be one thing (I'd then agree with you), but that is not the case in modern America. To do away with looking at race or ethnicity is to ignore the harsh realities of American life as experienced by our minority population."

Racism this, racism that. Are you seriously arguing that Justice Scalia's family has a harder time in life because they're African-American versus a poor Vietnamese immigrant who may be equally disliked? Race is skin deep, as they say, and is not a valid method of determining "injustice" done by society by any means. What about the black kid going to Andover versus the white kind in Compton? Honestly, race FALLS APART as a mechanism for rectifying inequalities the more you look at it. This is why I propose a system looking at ECONOMIC inequality, which has a HIGHER correlation to SAT/College success rates than ANY other factor, INCLUDING race.

culovv: I think the system I'm proposing would be more fair to you than the one currently in place.

Addendum: I would like it to be noted that I have not once complained about an URM "taking my spot", as it were. I'm arguing on principle.

By Culovv (Culovv) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit

This is college admissions - not killing.

The system you are talking about is already in place. Do you really believe that an asian with an income of 30k will have a harder time getting into colleges than a hispanic with an income of 300k? It's just not going to happen. Ad coms simply look at who will bring the most to their school and race IS NOT and never has been more important than overcoming obstacles. Umich may have given URMs 20 points (or whatever the hell it was) but they also had points available for "special circumstances."

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 01:49 am: Edit

That is a debate tactic, where you take the extreme example in order to prove a point. It applies equally well to ethical questions throughout the spectrum of severity - and yes, at some level, applying affirmative action (in any given form) does become an ethical question of human value.

For a good example of this, in Fyodor Dostoevsky's book "The Brothers Karamazov" this is used to great effect in the chapter titled "Rebellion".

Edit:
"The system you are talking about is already in place. Do you really believe that an asian with an income of 30k will have a harder time getting into colleges than a hispanic with an income of 300k?"
Seen it happen.

"Ad coms simply look at who will bring the most to their school and race IS NOT and never has been more important than overcoming obstacles. Umich may have given URMs 20 points (or whatever the hell it was) but they also had points available for "special circumstances.""

So please prove to me again why race is a factor outside of socioeconomic status? You might say "culture", but using race to define culture is completely vague. Is there a universal black culture? No. Are there whites who subscribe to black culture (and don't get the benefits of AA to go along with it)? Yes. Are there minorities who have no association with the groupthink whatsoever? Yes. So why does race even have to be considered as an exterior factor? This kind of hardship is the perfect thing to write an essay about (again, I would argue this is a "socio"-economic hardship (you seem to think I only refer to the economics of it)), not to check a box indicating your agreement and experience with the entire black/Hispanic/Indian population. It's the principle of racial inequality that it implies and the ways it can be abused that bother me greatly.

And with that, I'm off to bed. Catch you later.

By Culovv (Culovv) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit

"So please prove to me again why race is a factor outside of socioeconomic status? You might say "culture", but using race to define culture is completely vague."

So why is that that URMs are under-represented in the first place? No matter what excuse you give I can just say that doing better than most other people in the group with which you are categorized is worth something.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit

Race is a factor outside socioeconomic status because you cannot change your appearance. Racism is based on obvious distictions (hence the internment of Japanese in WWII).

As for the examples, The Amemdments come about by an external question. If the question is not raised, then it would not be ruled on.

As for disparity with respect to primary and secondary schools, it is a combination not just economic force that creates distinction. Skin color, as so many studies have shown affect perception, before facts.

'Racism this, racism that. Are you seriously arguing that Justice Scalia's family has a harder time in life because they're African-American versus a poor Vietnamese immigrant who may be equally disliked? Race is skin deep, as they say, and is not a valid method of determining "injustice" done by society by any means. What about the black kid going to Andover versus the white kind in Compton? Honestly, race FALLS APART as a mechanism for rectifying inequalities the more you look at it. This is why I propose a system looking at ECONOMIC inequality, which has a HIGHER correlation to SAT/College success rates than ANY other factor, INCLUDING race.'

This is a debate tactic also...using the smaller number of exmples to disprove the rule. It does not breakdown...because of economic status...as that status is tied to race. Fair, no. I never said life was fair. But, I also don't believe in being ego centric about my group affiliations. It's great for people who are economically disadvantaged and look white. It's not great for those who are economically challenged and appear to be URMs. If people could ignore appearnce, I'd think it was okay. Most people cannot do so.

That is the problem. As for Scalia...he appears whiter than most URMs, thus can sooth the conscious of whites by using him as a token. Like saying 'I have black friends....' Gives the illusion of inclusiveness without giving-up power (that whites have).

Rob.

Maybe you should watch Monsters Inc. almost verbatum. I do have the movie.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:33 am: Edit

All measures, economic, race, athleticism, kinship ties, education, etc....is also as vague as using race as culture.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 02:35 am: Edit

If you were arguing on principle, then you would have started with inequity in Primary and secondary school...not whether AA is fair or unfair to white males.

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 09:32 am: Edit

"So why is that that URMs are under-represented in the first place? No matter what excuse you give I can just say that doing better than most other people in the group with which you are categorized is worth something."

I do better than most left handed brown hair white males of above average height and average weight coming from middle class backgrounds in Southern California and I bet at least one of the groups I fall into is underrepresented in college admissions. I don't get special admissions benefits because of it. Great argument.

"If you were arguing on principle, then you would have started with inequity in Primary and secondary school...not whether AA is fair or unfair to white males."

You missed the entire point, dude. AA DOES NOT HELP with inequity in primary or secondary education. If a black person who is less qualified is hired to be a fireman because he's black and is less qualified than the white candidate, would you feel safe? WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ON A BASIC LEVEL WHICH IS WHY AA ISN'T HELPING AT ALL: IT MERELY CREATES MORE OF A PROBLEM.

"Skin color, as so many studies have shown affect perception, before facts."

So does height, weight, facial expression, hair style, hair color, eye color, foot size, and any number of things. And that's "effect", not "affect".

"Maybe you should watch Monsters Inc. almost verbatum. I do have the movie."

Hey, this is where a civilized person admits he's wrong, giving it up. You're wrong, completely wrong, and just plain wrong. I pointed you to the IMDB quotes site on Monsters Inc which has NOTHING LIKE WHAT I POSTED (but no, apparently IMDB isn't reliable), now I'll give you a link to an ALPHA CENTAURI quote site that has the EXACT QUOTE:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/smac.html

Incidentally, how does one watch something "almost verbatim"? Weird.

More later.

By Culovv (Culovv) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit

"I do better than most left handed brown hair white males of above average height and average weight coming from middle class backgrounds in Southern California and I bet at least one of the groups I fall into is underrepresented in college admissions. I don't get special admissions benefits because of it. Great argument."

You're in at Yale aren't you? Your hair color and handedness is completely irrelevant. It had no significant effect on how you were raised. Did you go into first grade not knowing one word of English because you were left handed? Did your parents not go to college because most left handers don't go to college and they felt that a HS education was all that was needed? Of course not.

URMs are under-represented in the first place because the cultural norms don't emphasize education. You said it yourself... "upper class blacks dont usually score as high as lower class asians." That alone is enough reason to give high scoring blacks a boost.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:09 am: Edit

'You missed the entire point, dude. AA DOES NOT HELP with inequity in primary or secondary education. If a black person who is less qualified is hired to be a fireman because he's black and is less qualified than the white candidate, would you feel safe? WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ON A BASIC LEVEL WHICH IS WHY AA ISN'T HELPING AT ALL: IT MERELY CREATES MORE OF A PROBLEM.'

Of course AA doesn't help. It is used to CORRECT for societal biases and prejudice. If you start by working on prejudice in other areas, then AA will eventually cease. If not...still disparity.

Yes, people make judgements about URMs based on perceptions (i.e. walking down the street), rather than think about URMs as individuals first. Thus, URMs are seen as representative as a group (even before AA), rather that white (who are seen as individuals). Getting rid of AA before dealing with peoples prejudice will ensure the status quo...thus benefiting whites as a who.


Agains, since I was refering to your quote, it should have been obvious that the word 'verbatum' was with respect to your quote, not to how you view the movie. Definition arguements are also a debate tactic btw.

Nothing new from where I sit. Doing away with AA without dealing with the majorities prejudice ensures prejudice. It's funny, but I'm not for AA as a general idea. But, the real world is harsher than the intellectual vacum.

It's great in the ideal to do away with AA. And the ideal would also mean that people don't judge others based on skin colour, income, etc... But as you point out, sheer numbers often win, when push comes to shove. Whether Just or unjust, legal or not.

Those who own or can influence the process will win in the end, thus the two rulings in UMichigan. Hence the hoopla about gay marriage, etc...

Power corrupts. Luckily, generations come and go, with different ideas, sometimes more progressive and sometimes more conservative.

You told me I don't live in the real world, but I do. Life is not fair. Face it. An ends justifies the means arguement is moot. The majority oppresses the minority because it can.

To not address the inequity with respect to the majority while taking away even more power from the minority is still unsavory.

AA happend because people began to recognize the inequities. It is just that now the majority is worried that they won't get their piece of the pie, even though it has been pointed out that such practices affect only about 10% of college admissions decisions at MIT for example. The majority still has a comfortable lead.

Rob.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:19 am: Edit

Like I said, people make judgements based on perceptions and preconcieved notions about URMs, before they ever look at facts.

An intellectual arguement in a vaccum is useless if it does not at least try to incorperate some of the other intertwined issues that impact the discussion.

Even the use of income or economic status would favor a second or third generation 'rich' applicant over a 1st generation one. Take an istance where someone starts a business who does not have a college education. During the building of the business, his or her children help by working until they are successful. The colleges, based on zip code, aid forms, etc...would not see the difference. Thus, the kids would be seen as underperforming in relation to their peer group.

Again, it's the same situation as AA. You might say just to gather more information, but that is a cultural thing. Many asian families who are not 2nd or 3rd generation do not 'feel' okay with such dissemination of their finances. Thus, race/ethnicity/culture comes into play.

Rob.;)

By Whatever04 (Whatever04) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit

Culovv....you get bitched at for studying more than 30 min?? And you say this is because ur hispanic??? What kinda of BS is this?
I know plenty of hispanics at my school who are very bright students, and all though most of them are even immigrants, they do well in school, etc.
And don't tell me hispanics in the US are worse off then say...Eastern European immigrants who are to be condiered white. Those are the kids that have been through tough times, through communism, through poverty, etc. And yet...they're going to be compared to the rest of the white Americans.
This only reenforces that AA, based on race is stupid and as some people put it...a socio-economic evaluation would tell me more about people.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Whatever...

Actually...eastern europeans (at least those I know in the Pacific Northwest) are not compared against whites, but against those with similar backgrounds...at least at most of the schools I applied to.

Rob.

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Ah, the timeless argument:

"I know rich (Hispanics/Blacks)'s that go to my school, so therefore I can presume they represent the average Hispanic/Black student throughout the U.S."

By Evil_Robot (Evil_Robot) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Neo: Yeah, cause that's really what we're arguing.

The average Hispanic/black high school student isn't applying to the schools where AA would make a difference. We're already dealing with the upper (economic) spectrum.

Get over it.

Rob: This forum is a really inefficient way to hold this discussion. I don't have the time to make monolithic posts every hour or so: maybe you wanna continue this over e-mail? Let me know.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 02:11 am: Edit

Hey there Evil..sure.

I think it's the stress of admissions...I sound less resonable than normal. I just read the previous posts...must have been cranky.

I'll email ya with my addy in the morning.

Rob

By Whatever04 (Whatever04) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 05:16 am: Edit

Rob...I believe eastern europeans would also classify as caucasians, and most schools dont ask where u were born, etc. Unless under race question one puts OTHER: Russian, etc, which would be really stupid in my opinion.

By Bjturlington (Bjturlington) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Whatever...

It is an applicants responsibility (as well as their counselors) to let the adcoms know about your backgraound. If there is something you want them to use when looking at an app, you should document it by a rec or an essay that touches on it.

If you expect the adcoms to know particulars, then that may be wishing for too much. Definately check the 'Other' box, and talk about the journey from eastern europe to America. Focus on your experience.

That's a part of the process.
Rob.

By Subtrunks (Subtrunks) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

AA is good idea in as perfect world but in reality all it does is give advantage to URM's that are well off. AA should focus more on the socio economic status than race. So the poor white kid from Arkansas has better chance at a higher learning institution, than Oprah's child who has take 2,000 SAT courses and has a private tutor on demand.

By Neona (Neona) on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

I hate stupid people more than I love AA.

By Dunadan (Dunadan) on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 09:17 pm: Edit

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but there's a few things I wanted
to point out.

I believe the program Blackminority1 is referring to is Project
Interphase. As far as I know, it isn't restricted to minorities,
although mostly minorities attend. It's primarily designed to help
students who did not have access to as good a high school education as
other admits, but were otherwise considered promising, to make an
easier transition to MIT. I would encourage anyone who thinks they
would benefit from the program to apply.

My general take on the AA issue is that the problem goes beyond merely
that racial minorities don't generally have access to the same level
of educational opportunities. Racial minorities don't often come from
cultures that appreciate education, especially the type of
math/science education that is a prerequisite for many MIT courses.
So this is why you have people such as Jews, Japanese, etc. who have
experienced discrimination on the level that African-Americans and
Hispanics have faced, but still manage to get good educations.

Also, consider that if they wanted to, MIT could admit strictly on
merit, and lots of arguably qualified students wouldn't get in,
regardless of race.

Finally, as good a school as MIT is, I think there are lots of schools
(including state schools) that are as good (in terms of the level of
academic instruction), and are much cheaper. (In all fairness, MIT
probably outranks most of them in terms of the opportunity for
cutting-edge undergraduate research.)