Usdk wrote:
they're not supposed to alter the outcomes in any way shape or form. they're SUPPOSED to be for survey reasons. we don't have many X people applying to our company, what can we do to improve that, sort of thing.
Yeah, but they most definitely affect outcomes when it comes to college admissions, which is the shame of it.
Facts:
Being a woman makes it harder to get into a college (
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html)
Being Asian puts you at a disadvantage (because they are an over represented minority)
Being white is bad...but being poor and white is worse:
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/origina ... sians.htmlQuote:
The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing "racial minorities." Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived. Private institutions, Espenshade and Radford suggest, "intentionally save their scarce financial aid dollars for students who will help them look good on their numbers of minority students." Quoting a study by NYU researcher Mitchell Stevens, they write: "ultimate evaluative preference for members of disadvantaged groups was reserved for applicants who could be counted in the college's multicultural statistics. This caused some admissions officers no small amount of ethical dismay."
