UD told to improve student diversity now
So many questions arise when thinking about this.
#1) Shouldn't college acceptance be merit based?
#2) Is lack of diversity due to high cost of college?
#3) Does college ask about race on application?
#4) Is there some suggestion that the school is trying to keep non-whites out?
#5) How many non-white applications are there per year?
#6) What percentage of non-white applications are accepted per year?
#7) How does one prevent reverse-discrimination against white students who meet academic requirements?
#8) Is there a "magic percentage number" of non-whites that would make people happy?
#9) Is a school with a predominately white population of students doing something wrong?
1) Ideally, yes, as with most other things in the world. However, unfortunately it isn't nor will it ever be (perfectly), but still there's so much that needs to be improved
2) No, rather due to social differences among race and wealth classes
3) Yes, ALWAYS (the top ones at least). You can choose not to answer but given how you almost always have to have an interview (face-to-face, guaranteeing that your race will be known even if you choose not to answer in your application), and that in the case of Asians, your surname is enough to give it away unless you change your name, you're pretty much forced to expose your race.
4) To be honest I haven't read this specific article, but all the (statistical and empirical) evidence suggests that schools are generally doing everything they can to include them in. Here's an article that summarizes the findings of a well-known study on the effects of affirmative action in colleges:
http://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-discriminate-against-asians
5) Many
6) Proportionally more than whites or Asians
7) Make admissions race-blind. Remove names and race from applications, make faces invisible in interviews (think how singers/musicians perform behind closed curtains in auditions as to prevent any prejudices based on their appearances). However, the problem with college admission is that there are other factors that prevent it from becoming meritocratic. Children of donors, legacies, recruited athletes, "well-connected" (ie connections with admission office employee, member of board of directors, political leaders, etc...) all of them also gain an immeasurable advantage over other students. Erase legacies, donations from people connected to applicants, and anything that prevents a meritocratic process. Athletes should not be recruited and given preference (they usually fail abominably to even come close to the academic standards but are still admitted) but given the state of America's unique collegiate sports, I doubt that it will ever happen. Finally, something that is overlooked: make admissions need-blind. That means that students who need financial aid or are from financially underprivileged backgrounds should not be passed over in favor of those who can afford it and whose parents can make donations, if the poor students are academically more qualified.
8) There shouldn't be, period.
9) Not necessarily. Schools that are local-based (schools that mostly draw students from its local region such as state colleges) can have a predominant racial population depending on the racial makeup of the local population. For example, I'd imagine that a college in New York is comprised of more black students than a college in say, Idaho.
Finally, diversity is certainly a good thing, but it should never be given precedence over meritocracy. Not only are there so many things morally wrong with such discrimination, but what about race does it make it so special? Why not make quotas based on sexual orientation? Religion? Extracurricular activities? I find the notion of diversity for diversity's sake so laughably wrong, I'm not even going to attempt to argue against it.
