which groups are given URM status "regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not"?
Quote from: bluntsfortiesandbitches on December 26, 2004, 02:31:10 AMwhich groups are given URM status "regardless of whether they were previously disadvantaged or not"?to answer that question look at the other half.which groups are NOT given urm status despite previous disadvantges.as has been pointed out many times, lumping all asians together is wrong. many have not had too many disadvantages, while others have had seroius disadvatages.jews were severely disadvantaged just a few generations ago. (i dont think they should be given any extra benefits now as they are represented plenty in the field of law, but it simply proves my point that previously disadvantaged or not has nothing to do with the calculation).again, to say, well the issue is what about their socioeconomic status today? that doesnt really matter. if any individual has been at a disadvantage then pointing that out to adcomms will allow them to take that into consideration.the issue of giving urm is about ensuring that different racial/ethnic groups have adequate representation. that's it, and it makes a lot of sense. what doesnt make a lot of sense is how they divide up groups to determine what group is considered a urm and what group is not.
This is a serious question and not one intended to make any point on this issue - Is URM intended to be AA?The reason I ask is because for me just taking the term at face value it sounds more like a diversity measure and I think this maybe why a lot of confusion/disagreement may be coming from.
Blunts asked a legitimate question and answering it is essential to the understanding of why AA programs are instituted in the first place. Asking, "Why?" is much more relevant in this case than asking "Why not?" In order to understand the system we need to look for common denominators between the groups who currently benefit from AA. Asking why other groups do not only leads to speculation and serves as a means of critiquing the current system, not understanding it.
Your logic is really flawed. You are taking a race's representation within the entire population and applying them to advanced degree holders within a racial category. Whoa, sister! MY logic certainly doesn't imply this. I posted those numbers to imply that if the same opportunities were afforded to everyone, the percentages of advanced degree holders within each ethnic group would be a lot closer to one another. After all, it would be preposterous to assume that only 8% of Hispanics hold advanced degrees because only 8% want them. It seems logical to think that, all things being equal, the percentage of people desiring advanced degrees should not vary so significantly by race. 42% to 8%? C'mon, you know that's ridiculous! My numbers don't come out to 100 because I left out the "other" category. Quote
Quote from: RuskieGirl on December 26, 2004, 02:48:55 AMBlunts asked a legitimate question and answering it is essential to the understanding of why AA programs are instituted in the first place. Asking, "Why?" is much more relevant in this case than asking "Why not?" In order to understand the system we need to look for common denominators between the groups who currently benefit from AA. Asking why other groups do not only leads to speculation and serves as a means of critiquing the current system, not understanding it.a) have to note u never responded to my other post. reposting in case you missed it.i'm not sure why you selected just males, but according to those stats whites are terribly underrepresented. also, you're citing BA's and above, we're talking specifically JD's. i'm not saying your sample might not be relevant, i'm saying i have no way of knowing. you'd be better off citing statistics that are 100% on point.anyway UMHBmom 's point was (and she'll correct me if i'm wrong, and then it will be my point) is that those categories of dividing people up are political categories. if you dont want to call them political, use a different term, but they are not at all the best way to divide up population. immigrants, for example, cannot be said to have adequate representation simply because whites might be adequately represented and the immigrants in discussion have a white complexion.b) blunts asked a very legitimate question. it was whether urm's are based on being previously disadvantaged as a group or not. if it is based in that then the glaring exceptions, to name a few, that i cited should not exist. i did respond to blunt's question have no clue how you could not see that my response was on point.