4 ms·

Race is a proxy for all sorts of cultural differences, hardships, experiences, etc. Being an outlier of your group with similar cultural disadvantages is an ind

Race is a proxy for all sorts of cultural differences, hardships, experiences, etc. Being an outlier of your group with similar cultural disadvantages is an indication of leadership. I read an article recently about the origin of extracurriculars in the college admissions process. Basically they turned from defining the system on a GPA/SAT basis to one that tried to predict future leaders. The college that lead in this change, Harvard, is now the most prestigious university in the world. It was precisely because they stopped defining "merit" based on just test scores that it is what it is today. The point is, it has been a long time since merit was GPA/SAT scores for top-tier college admissions. The criteria changes frequently as kids pattern their lives after what they assume the current criteria is. If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense.

wfunction 14y ago
> If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense. You're owed exactly as much of a spot as anyone with the same qualifications as you, which is exactly equal to that of a Black or White kid with the same qualifications.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.
  - wfunction 14y ago
    You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      But race combined with other factors can be a predictor of leadership skills, which is the only thing that really matters. Talk of qualifications and merit are muddying the issue. The question is about probability that this person will obtain significant power in the future, and thus increase the brand of the university they came from. Race is a legitimate factor in such a discussion. It's up to those who don't like it to prove that its inherently wrong to consider race in their calculation.
      - wfunction 14y ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill. Even if that's a goal, it doesn't seem to be the main one. Frankly, I've never heard a college admissions official say they look at race to determine leadership skills, even if they really do do that. If they do that, then it's fine for them to do so, but that just doesn't seem to be the issue here. And to the best of my knowledge, it didn't seem to be the issue in the Bakke case either, which nevertheless got the Supreme Court's nod toward promoting "diversity".
        hackinthebochs 14y ago
        >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill. It can certainly be read this way, but it's not obvious that this is so. Diversity creates an atmosphere that will most likely mirror the world in which these future leaders will be required to navigate. That in itself is enough of a justification for diversity, assuming their goal is to educate future leaders. Also, there is the fact that leaders of ethnic groups tend to be of that ethnic group, so maximizing some proportion of diversity is increasing that schools chance of educating a future leader.

wfunction 14y ago

> If you are one of a million (Asian) kids with perfect GPA and SAT scores, well, you're likely not going to get in. You are not owed a spot in any sense. You're owed exactly as much of a spot as anyone with the same qualifications as you, which is exactly equal to that of a Black or White kid with the same qualifications.

hackinthebochs 14y ago
You're still defining "qualifications" and GPA and SAT scores. This is a bias on your part that is no longer appropriate at the elite universities. These schools are not selecting for the smartest or the most studious. They are selecting future leaders. GPA and SAT scores are not in and of themselves good correlations to what they are looking for. You really need to accept this, or at least formulate an argument as to why this is inherently unfair. But your assumption is plainly wrong.
- wfunction 14y ago
  You can define qualification to be leadership skills or whatever else you want, I'm not claiming they're just looking for good test scores. I'm just saying that race isn't a qualification.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    But race combined with other factors can be a predictor of leadership skills, which is the only thing that really matters. Talk of qualifications and merit are muddying the issue. The question is about probability that this person will obtain significant power in the future, and thus increase the brand of the university they came from. Race is a legitimate factor in such a discussion. It's up to those who don't like it to prove that its inherently wrong to consider race in their calculation.
    - wfunction 14y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill. Even if that's a goal, it doesn't seem to be the main one. Frankly, I've never heard a college admissions official say they look at race to determine leadership skills, even if they really do do that. If they do that, then it's fine for them to do so, but that just doesn't seem to be the issue here. And to the best of my knowledge, it didn't seem to be the issue in the Bakke case either, which nevertheless got the Supreme Court's nod toward promoting "diversity".
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that colleges always say they're looking for "diversity" is a blunt admission that they're their reason for looking at race is "diversity" (a.k.a. affirmative action), not to determine leadership skill. It can certainly be read this way, but it's not obvious that this is so. Diversity creates an atmosphere that will most likely mirror the world in which these future leaders will be required to navigate. That in itself is enough of a justification for diversity, assuming their goal is to educate future leaders. Also, there is the fact that leaders of ethnic groups tend to be of that ethnic group, so maximizing some proportion of diversity is increasing that schools chance of educating a future leader.