Quote from: Lindbergh on August 31, 2007, 06:32:45 AMAnd, in all honesty, I might even factor ethnicity into this at every level if it appeared that it did constitute an actual obstacle that the student had to overcome, and that therefore showed potential strength of character, etc. However, I would not weigh that more heavily than academic achievement, or the factors that directly impact academic achievement (educational opportunity), and I would not assume that everyone from a certain ethnic group is similarly challenged/advantaged. This is probably fair as well. I'm sure that for some people, their race/ethnicity has been a greater obstacle than for others. The situation we have at the moment is that admissions offices assume that it has been an obstacle of a certain degree. For some, that might be overstating the case and for others it might be understating. Maybe what we should want is for admissions offices to try to evaluate at an individual level whether race/ethnicity had been an actual obstacle rather than simply assuming it.
And, in all honesty, I might even factor ethnicity into this at every level if it appeared that it did constitute an actual obstacle that the student had to overcome, and that therefore showed potential strength of character, etc. However, I would not weigh that more heavily than academic achievement, or the factors that directly impact academic achievement (educational opportunity), and I would not assume that everyone from a certain ethnic group is similarly challenged/advantaged.
Quote from: Lindbergh on August 31, 2007, 04:54:29 PMIn some cases, of course, ethnicity might be a larger obstacle than other obstacles, and should be weighted accordingly. In other cases, ethnicity might well be a smaller obstacle than those faced by a non-urm. Probably. Administrative ease perhaps? It's a lot easier to see whether or not someone has checked the URM box than to read thousands of statements on overcoming adversity of different kinds. Admissions offices have assumed that in general, someone who is a member of a URM has overcome some kind of adversity. It's not a bad assumption, though undoubtedly it applies less to rich applicants than to poor ones.
In some cases, of course, ethnicity might be a larger obstacle than other obstacles, and should be weighted accordingly. In other cases, ethnicity might well be a smaller obstacle than those faced by a non-urm.
Quote from: dashrashi on August 31, 2007, 04:29:48 PMPN is a wiener. For a second I thought you had called him a whiner.
PN is a wiener.
Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.
Quote from: Lindbergh on August 31, 2007, 06:17:10 PMAfter all, the vast majority were simply unprepared for that level of study, and it was probably a pain searching for qualified applicants at the time. How would this have been more difficult from finding qualified white applicants?
After all, the vast majority were simply unprepared for that level of study, and it was probably a pain searching for qualified applicants at the time.
Quote from: Pseudo Nym on August 30, 2007, 09:00:27 AMQuote from: Lindbergh on August 30, 2007, 08:10:52 AMQuote from: Miss P on August 30, 2007, 04:12:47 AMI can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 02:51:16 AMGo easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school. I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated. Would you disagree? Looks like sarcasm opens you up to being quoted out of context by leftist trolls.I wasn't even being sarcastic. I honestly don't think it is always someone's fault when they're incarcerated. People from poor backgrounds don't always have the same opportunities as people from wealthy backgrounds. The author of that thread seemed angry that certain people were in jail instead of school, which seemed unfair, at least to me. Again, not everyone has the same opportunities.
Quote from: Lindbergh on August 30, 2007, 08:10:52 AMQuote from: Miss P on August 30, 2007, 04:12:47 AMI can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 02:51:16 AMGo easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school. I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated. Would you disagree? Looks like sarcasm opens you up to being quoted out of context by leftist trolls.
Quote from: Miss P on August 30, 2007, 04:12:47 AMI can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 02:51:16 AMGo easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail. Someone was expressing anger that minorities were supposedly "all in jail" and not in law school. I simply made the observation that it's not always someone's fault if they're incarcerated. Would you disagree?
I can't imagine why anyone would question your good faith.Quote from: Lindbergh on August 29, 2007, 02:51:16 AMGo easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail.
Go easy on the blacks and hispanics. It's not necessarily their fault their all in jail.