Getting a little test, aren't we sweetheart? Actually, the stats I pulled gave the percentage of advanced degree holders within a specific racial population, NOT the ratio of advanced degree holders to an entire population. Therefore, 42% doesn't represent the fact that 42% of advanced degree holders are Asian, but rather the fact that 42% of Asians hold advanced degrees. My stat readings are just fine. Comprende?
UMHB, your post sparked me to actually read the thread. You seem like a reasonable person, and I think the question is actually interesting and innovative (as opposed to many of the AA "debates" that go on on this board.)I think the term URM is probably a misnomer if you strictly construe it and don't clearly define "minority." The term "minority" could theoretically be used for a lot of different groups, including Russian-Americans, Korean-Americans, etc. It's convenient for semantical purposes, but it's not really descriptive of what goes on/should be going on in the admissions process. So, maybe Russian is technically underrepresented, but that has nothing to do with whether he gets an admissions advantage based solely on his ethnicity.The use of AA in the admissions process is designed to select groups that have faced systematic discrimination imparted by the US government and who have not yet overcome that systematic, legalized discrimination. Of course, like any other policy, AA is not perfect and there are groups that maybe should benefit that don't, depending on a particular school's policy. There are also individuals who have faced particular disadvantage who aren't considered "URM" for the purposes of AA, but who gain admission with lower scores in consideration of that disadvantage on an individual basis. (Yep, not all the people who get in with lower scores are URM, and some of them post on this board. Of course, no one questions their credentials once it is clear they aren't "URM".)The fact is, just by having the Scarlet A of "African-American" or "Chicano" is extremely limiting to even privileged members of these groups. You mentioned that you're of Korean descent - this is so awful, but when people look at Asians they think "smart, good at math" not "criminal, good at sports." Those stereotypes permeate our society even into the upper echelons of the legal profession (sadly. All stereotyping is bad. )Also, the thing with AA is that it doesn't seek to address WHY certain groups are largely overcoming historical disadvantage and why others haven't. I have my own ideas on that matter, but the fact is, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Southeast Asian, and African-American people are still underperforming as groups on culturally-biased instruments like the LSAT. It is in a school's interest, however, to have a critical mass of these groups. Consequently, they use positive preference policies, and I think these pedagogical interests justify their policies.The task, then, should be figuring out exactly what is in that "black box" between high-achieving students of all races and some ethnic groups' lower performance on the LSAT. No one is asking WHY an African-American who goes to a top historically-Caucasian school and gets a 4.0 is unlikely to score as well on the LSAT as their counterpart with a 3.6. Obviously, the 3.6 is not necessarily smarter, so what gives? If we expend energy on that question, I think we can get to a point where AA is no longer needed. Until we reach that point, groups that are defined as "URM" for the purposes of admission will not include those who are performing on par with utterly privileged American Whites (even though some are loathe to admit their privilege.)Boy, didn't I just ramble on...
Quote from: russian_concussion on December 26, 2004, 09:09:57 PMOh stereotypes. Being Russian, I hear all sorts of whacky ones. One time I even heard a reverse stereotype. It came from a girl that I used to know who was so blessed physically that she was cursed mentally. She asked me, with all sincerity, whether I have seen any snow before I came to America.What?! LOL. She was an idiot...I hope she was blessed beyond belief physically to help compensate...
Oh stereotypes. Being Russian, I hear all sorts of whacky ones. One time I even heard a reverse stereotype. It came from a girl that I used to know who was so blessed physically that she was cursed mentally. She asked me, with all sincerity, whether I have seen any snow before I came to America.
My comment was dismissive because that is my attitude toward the increasingly excessive AA discussion on this board. It wasn't a function of this particular thread; it's the environment that has been generated since acceptances started rolling in - every time someone with lower numbers for a school is accepted, the first question is "Are you URM?" and if so, the thread devolves into an AA discussion. It's tired, lame, and yes I think the people who start those discussions need to get a life.
Call me rude if you must, but honestly my initial comment was a flippant response to an annoying new trend on this board. What I liked about LSD as opposed to XOXO from the outset was that there were not a ton of perfectly innocent threads winding up in AA-bashing sessions. It gets old, and I personally think those who perpetrate this kind of behavior are the rude (and short-sighted) ones. I could get into defending the merits of AA, but I've already done that on a number of threads and I just don't have time to do it on every one - I do have a life.
Honey child, I am an African-American progressive Democrat who used to work for Democratic campaigns and on Exec Board of College Democrats. Trust me, I don't need to think Ruskie's cool to support affirmative action. NOW you can note my bias.
I am not telling you what you should and should not discuss, but I would argue that what you spend your time discussing says a lot about who you are and what your values are. "Oppressed" white males who spend significant time constantly criticizing affirmative action because it is discriminatory? Because those "privileged" Black people aren't really disadvantaged? Umm...yep, that says a whole lot.
look the question is whether a russian immigrant is a URM right?
you say yes because his ethnicity is underrepresented, ergo he is an underepresented minoritywe say no because #1 under your definition every immigrant would be a URM which ( i dont think) is not for what URM status was intended.
#2 i bvelieve that URM status was intended for those communities and groups of people that faced HISTORICAL hardship in the US, the effects of which are STILL appearant today.So the Asian community recovered and the Jewish community recovered but the Black and Hispanic communities have not and are URM.