Race and Class in Elite College Admission

Well that explains the weak numbers on Long Island City condos.

This was an informative article. This issue was addressed in a conservative campus publication at a private university by a classmate of mine twenty years ago. My classmate received death threats after her article was published, and her sources in the student recruitment office promptly denied their involvement. Revealing that the same issue exists today.

Unlike the white working-class, most poor black Americans are wiggling out of the legacy of US slavery, in which learning to read (and thus get further education) was punishable. Given that education begins at home, that's a cycle worth breaking with affirmative action ... and obviously not applicable to more affluent black families, which would make the programs racist rather than corrective.

Similarly, the great majority of Hispanic citizens of the US are of recent assimilation to the English language, unlike the white population (majority German, not English, btw), who've mostly been speaking English as a first language for generations. Again, worth giving the leg-up, but not if the families are already affluent.

Legacy admissions to children of alumni (a standard practice of highly selective colleges and universities)? No benefit to anybody, except maybe at fundraising time. Should be outlawed.

alan, your comment might have made sense around 40 years ago.

Its not an article. Its an op-ed. That is where a writer with hard-wired opinions is allowed to read a complex scholarly work in such a way as to support such opinions. See, e.g. the jump from low represenation of leaders of 4-H clubs and Future Farmers at elite universities to oppression of Christians.

What it has to do with real estate, I'm really not sure.

bill frist, a vociferous opponent of affirmative action, an alum of princeton, has two sons who attended

they both had SAT scores of appx 1000 out of the possible max of 1600 when tested

affirmative action for the rich and powerful is OK?

affirmative action students at notre dame, the school most-attended by legacies, consistently outperform their legacy counterparts

actually, in frist's sons' cases, it would be affirmative action for the uninteligent rich and powerful

asians are most discriminated against--the need better results by leaps and bounds than any other group to gain admission and financial aid--a poor white rural christian candidate has a layup compared to any asian

the system should be based purely on measurable merit and financial need--if changed so things run this way there will be little benefit accrued poor rural christian whites--process would become easier for asians and, to a lesser degree, eastern european descended students--all other groups would have a harder time

LIC is still just pissy he didn't get in. This is the second time he started a long anti-Ivy thread.

Ubottom, interesting point: the great majority of Asian citizens of the US are also of recent assimilation to the English language.

I think Alan's comments are more relevant in 2010 than they would have been in 1970 because of the distinction between racial and economic affirmative action criteria. For many African Americans, the family currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC for example, hard work and focus on education (I'm referring to the way Barak and Michelle were raised) have now gotten to a place where no "affirmative" action is necessary to insure that their children succeed.

Others have not been as lucky and are still living in situations not only is education not stressed, kids who do seek learning are often derided...many, and society in general, can still benefit from an "extra hand." The change in the economy in the last 30 years means the "blue collar middle class" is much smaller and without much opportunity for new generations. Whereas my friends could not go to college and get union jobs at better wages than college grads, today its pretty much "go to college or work at McDonald's" (I know that's an oversimplification). Maybe it shouldn't be a debate about getting into Princeton but rather making sure SUNY and CUNY are sufficiently funded so that aid is available to kids who wouldn't otherwise go to school.

And yes legacies are a freaking joke, especially since many have connections to get jobs whether they go ivy or weed but as someone pointed out...there is the fund raising aspect. So don't hold your breath waiting for any school to eliminate legacy preferences.

Who is majority German, alan?
Are you saying most "white" USA Americans of multigenerational descent on this side are of German ancestry?
It's well established that about 90% of white USA Americans were of English descent at the time of Independence. Descendants of subsequent waves of immigration married descendants of the overwhelmingly English colonists.

lowery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg

Basically, Germans were a very large, fairly early wave of immigrants and tended towards large families, so the exponential growth long ago outnumbered the much smaller number of English-ancestor people of 1776.

If, however, you count the British Isles as one group, rather than four separate ones, they predominate. Not sure if all Irish/Welsh immigrants to the US spoke English as a primary language, though ...?

I've heard of counting Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland/Ulster) as one but I would include what is now the Irish Republic strictly at your own risk. Especially if you happen to mention it around midnight Saturday night in certain establishments dedicated to the consumption of adult beverages.

While most Irish immigrants were English speaking, some of the more rural people only knew Gaelic when they arrived here. The great 19th century wave of Irish immigration is considered an "English speaking" immigrant group (as opposed to the later Italians, Jews and Eastern Europeans to whom the Irish looked good in comparison among the intolerant. Only their religion was objectionable whereas with the others it was religion plus plus)

No, it's "British Isles" ... a girl I once knew, a Catholic Dubliner whose family lived there for untold generations, uttered that phrase by mistake when I was visiting her in Dublin, then covered her mouth and gasped and said she's not supposed to say that.

Rural/poorer white folks may be accepted in lower numbers. Not saying that's a good thing. But I would say that the lasting effects of unequal treatment of many minorities, particularly American blacks, is still felt very strongly across the country today. It's a widespread problem. After certain oppressions are lifted, it's not reasonable to expect a full turnaround just like that. Time, money, and attention needs to be spent to create a level playing field, and that is what affirmative action type of programs are all about -- this happens to be focusing on the educational route as away to help fix the problem. This takes generations; it wouldn't be reasonable to say that just because there have been advanaces, let's drop the idea all together now.

In this day and age, affirmative action does more harm than good. Strict enforcement of anti-discrimination standards is the better solution.

Would love to hear a conservative article bemoaning legacy students - particularly when Daddy gives a lot of money to the school!

this reminds me of the students who were reprimanded and suspended at NYU for not participating in an optional march in Union Square against the war..

basically, if if you're conservative and fiscally responsible..buy a Macbook and hipsterwear to make admissions wet prior to submission.

if you are gay and have a low-key personality by nature, FLAME out during interviews, it helps. i'd say H/S/W have already stocked their rainbow quota, but Ross and Duke are still looking for their unicorns so flame on my fellow homos, or at least pretend to.

That idea simply misses the boat. It does nothing to remedy lack of economic opportunity among certain groups.

Though I don't believe in lower standards... any affirmitive action should be in the form of additional "chances", say extra gifted/talented programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods, after-school opportunities.... or, to make this simpler... take the kids who, say, fall short of ivy "regular" standards but within range, and give them a program to catch up, or at least get a fraction of the opportunity that the more well-off kids get.

(the idea I was referring to was LICs, I just got interrupted before finishing the post)

"Would love to hear a conservative article bemoaning legacy students - particularly when Daddy gives a lot of money to the school!"

Tough ones.... rich schools offer tremendous opportunity partially because they ARE rich. It stinks that you have to do that in some cases, but you can't kill the golden goose.

Same for football. Do those kids deserve to be there academically? Often not... but, if it makes the smart kids more likely to go (including the ones who are also athletes)....

or how about the blacks/Hispanics from middle income households who don't necessarily need the support but leverage their "just okay" grades to fill a quota...

must suck to be an over-represented poor Asian, who may actually need the funds.. if you're Asian i suggest the tranny post-op route to diversify the brochures.

hol4...or how about wealthy whites who from birth have had every advantage available, yet still are mediocre achievers, and still get into the best schools based on daddy's legacy, power and money?

you see the world strictly though the lens of your resentments, based on you pathetic performance in the world

stop blaming your failure on those different than you

you need to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"!!

failure? i ended up at top 12.. was kicking myself as it wasn't top 10, but nevertheless i came out more than okay as i pimped the network..

im a top.. stats? bod pics?

This message board is something else. Blacks are wiggling out of slavery? Every white person in a position of power at a college goes out of their way to help a minority student and they feel some personal pride for it because they are 'helping out' and 'doing a good deed' and 'want to make a difference' and other bs. There is no minority suffering in higher education other than in peoples bitter imaginary heads.

translation: "rabble rabble rabble rabble"

> There is no minority suffering in higher education other than in peoples bitter imaginary heads.

I think the suffering is by the minority students who ACTUALLY made it, who are looked at as "needing help" by the white folk who assume it was all affirmitive action.

LICCComent,
I'm not sure if you've actually ever interacted with people that live everyday with lack of opportunities. If you've really seen how the socioeconomics work, it's not that simple. Moreover, you are just flat out wrong with your comment. The problem nowadays is that discrimination is very tough to prove, and therefore hard to punish against. We are actually at a crossroads in these times. It's going to be a major speedbump to get over, if ever.

Put it this way: It's similar to the situation when a woman announces she's pregnant once she can no longer hide it. Her boss fires her 2 weeks later and has a variety of excuses that seem to make sense, but it's clear to the sensible coworker that it wouldn't have happened had she not gotten pregnant.

jhavmeier,
In reference to my point I made in the previous paragraph, the minorities suffering in higher education may not experience physical suffering. However, I have seen very much discrimination with my own eyes at the Ivy school I attended. It was as simple as much harsher grading. When confronted, the professor and T.A. had a variety of excuses. Point is, others had the exact same work and were marked higher. Happened to many, many black students. Did the black kids as a whole have inferior work? Even when it was proven to be the same? How is that suffering? Their grades are affected, which, in turn, "proves" to certain people that some groups are hopelessly inferior, which, again in turn, affects their chances when competeing for jobs, etc...

Again, I have seen it firsthand. To think these are isolated incidents is naive. I've heard of it at several places. Do you really think people would rather create conspiracies and victimize themselves after getting that far? Seems a bit stupid, don't you think?

saiyar- don't pass judgements on others' experiences. You have no idea what my experiences have been. From your comments, I believe your views to be extremely jaded.

And if a pregnant woman was fired right after telling her boss, and the company did not have clear evidence of the cause of the firing, she would have a very strong lawsuit. Your comments are not based on the real world.

"And if a pregnant woman was fired right after telling her boss, and the company did not have clear evidence of the cause of the firing, she would have a very strong lawsuit."

WRONG, LICcomm!!! In New York, workplace discrimination suits are nearly impossible to win by plaintiffs.

What about in Columbia County New York?

dnfcc

ah alan- seldom right and wrong again. Didn't I suggest to you to stop making a fool of yourself by trying to argue with me on things that are over your head? Take a look at the EEOC website.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Federal and State laws make sure that Americans are able to have children without losing their jobs. Discrimination against you because you are pregnant violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under this law, employers who have at least 15 workers are not allowed to:
o Refuse to hire a woman because of pregnancy
o Fire or force a worker to leave because she is pregnant
o Take away credit for previous years, accrued retirement benefits,
or seniority because of maternity leave
o Fire or refuse to hire a woman because she has an abortion

You must be allowed to keep working as long as you are able to do your job. Your boss cannot make a rule about how long you must stay out of work before or after childbirth. If your company does not offer sick leave, then it may be discriminating against pregnant workers.

Your employer must treat you at least as well as he/she treats other workers who can't do their jobs for a short time. For example, if your company lets a worker go who had a heart attack or broken leg on paid or unpaid disability leave, you must also have this right if you are unable to work because of pregnancy or childbirth. If your pregnancy stops you from being able to do your job, you have the right to be given easier duties, if other workers who can't do their jobs for a short time get this right.

Alanhart, re ancestries - people self-report by choice. They select their "heritage." So although an interesting case can be made for the Anglo nature of the American beast labeled "WASPs" being overstated because of the mixing, it is just as easy to overstate this the other way. In my earlier post I was actually thinking of a separate urban myth that gained wide circulation and popularity when I was college age, a revisionist claim that during colonial times there had to be a popular referendum on what would be the official American language, and German lost out to English by only one vote. Bill Bryson puts that in its perspective perfectly - at the time that referendum occurred, it was not nationwide, and it was only in a few German-concentrated districts where the vote was even close. His comments about that revisionist notion were borne out by my own research which I got sucked into as a hobby, genealogy. I have read through countless thousands of pages of census returns, line by line. I have noticed that Americans are eager to find a non-English heritage in their background, and indeed we are all gloriously mixed-up mutts. But a remarkably homogeneous people formed by 1800, isolated from European relatives, and that gang of WASPs count "Germans" and "Poles" etc. ad nauseam among their ancestors. It is the Anglo culture that has predominated and defined later generations. We used to call it "integration" before it became fashionable to be anything other than Anglo. You are right that there are non-English strains in America as well, Welsh, Irish and Scots. But many "Irish" who settled in the States and in Canada (Canada has funneled immigrants into the USA for 200 years) were Scots/Irish, i.e., Protestants from the northern shires of England and the border shires of Scotland who colonized Ireland. Then there's the whole question of whether and to what degree the Scots/Irish were English and/or Scots. I actually don't take that wikipedia article very seriously, but it's interesting.

I always felt that my classmates who had clearly been grated admission due to affirmative action policies were done a disservice in some ways. The majority of them simply were not prepared for the environment - their work was subpar and often in group settings they accomplished very little as the other group members rarely assigned them any work of substance. Certainly they got the brand on their resume, but in my experience they were ill prepared for the "real world." Most took jobs at large corporations who also had affirmative action policies (or with government agencies) and many were let go in the down turn. They just didn't learn enough in school because the pace was too quick for them. I felt they would have learned much more and gained far better skill-sets had they gone to a different school.

Can anyone post a link to a respected study done on the benefits of affirmative action for the actual student/employee? Admittedly my anecdotal evidence is just that and represents a small sample that is impossible to extract to the population as a whole with any significance, thus I seek a more detailed analysis.

LICcomm, what the law says is entirely different from the practical application of the law. To dumb it down almost to your level, the law says that jaywalking is against the rules. Does that mean there's no jaywalking?

> And if a pregnant woman was fired right after telling her boss, and the company did not have clear evidence of
> the cause of the firing, she would have a very strong lawsuit. Your comments are not based on the real world."

> WRONG, LICcomm!!! In New York, workplace discrimination suits are nearly impossible to win by plaintiffs

Agreed. You can come up with a list of shortcomings for pretty much any employees.

LIC, 'tis you who doesn't get the real world...

Lowery, you don't take US census self-reporting data seriously? You think that people are going to self-identify (incorrectly) with a nation that we've fought two major world wars against in the past century?

In high school, I did telephone polling for a news network. A vast number of people, when asked what country(ies) their ancestors were from (this is a standard question in the demographic section at the end of the poll), said "Uh, I don't know, just mixed American, I guess." They certainly didn't jump to "German".

Additionally, as you probably know from your genealogy research, lots of German surnames in the US were Anglicized (by the families themselves) during WWI ... The Schwartzes became the Blacks, the Brauns became the Browns, Schmidt to Smith, etc.

90% of pregnancy discrimination charge receipts filed with the EEOC in 2009 were resolved for a total of $16.8 million, which does not include monetary benefits obtained separate and apart from the EEOC.

alan- Why don't you just quit while you are behind?

If the total was $16.8 million, what's that, 50 cases?

If you think 50 is the whole shebang, you are off your rocker.
100 even. 200.

Not even close.

sme, you are clueless. Unless the company documented your "shortcomings" prior to you getting pregnant, it will not have a good defense.

I think some of you just love losing arguments.

you're really making yourself look bad with this one. let it go. this is worse than your circumcision.

"sme, you are clueless. Unless the company documented your "shortcomings" prior to you getting pregnant, it will not have a good defense."

not so smart, LIC. You can easily document the shortcomings after.

> I think some of you just love losing arguments.

I think you're projecting.

Seriously, you clearly haven't hired and fired folks before. You think 50 cases is all the discrimination out there, you are in fantasy land.

It is FAR easier to get away with than you think.

But, hey, wouldn't be the first time you got something wrong.

> you're really making yourself look bad with this one.

I like how we're narrowing it down to "this one" for LICC. Its rare to find one he makes himself not look bad on... ;-)

"Affirmative action was designed to keep women and minorities in competition with each other to distract us while white dudes inject AIDS into our chicken nuggets. That's a metaphor."

Hey LICC, What do you think "resolved" means in this context? Over half of the charges were "resolved" with a finding of no discrimination. The 10% that weren't resolved were likely resolved in the following year.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy.cfm

whoops

Who said the EEOC had only 50 cases? Typical sme to make up things that I have said because he thinks it makes him look less foolish.

And these have nothing to do with private lawsuits.

Alan and sme think that all these companies are firing pregnant woman and then forging pre-dated documentation of bad reviews to support the firings. And they think they live in the real world?????

Alan, a family who was ashamed of its (PARTIAL) German heritage was my father's, but I'm talking about the period after WWI, then after WWII. By the time I was a kid, it sounded exotic and kind of "cool" to be part German. And sort of dangerous. But I repeat, for all the German ancestors I have, and they precede 1800, they are outnumbered by English, Scots, "Irish" (actually Scots/Irish).

How many people even know their genealogy to 1800? Yes, I do know about Anglicization of surnames, and other transformations. I found one line that appeared in records, in reverse chronological order, as a very English-sounding, then smelled French-Canadian, because of the interchanging of English and French spellings of a first name, turned out to be only a half-French Canadian person, but whose father was from the outskirts of Kassel, in Hesse. Like other Hessians, notified in writing that he need not return home after having lost the war with the rebels, he integrated into the Quebecois community, where his name was butchered. The butchered version then got Anglicized. There are families in England with French surnames who have lived in England uninterrupted for many centuries. There are German surnamed Russians, whose ancestors really were from Germany. I do know all about that. And I remain confident that the English roots of American "whites" is far undercounted.

"o said the EEOC had only 50 cases? Typical sme to make up things that I have said because he thinks it makes him look less foolish."

Jeez, LIC, you are slow. $16.8 million in "wins". How many "winning" cases you think that is?

" Over half of the charges were "resolved" with a finding of no discrimination. "

whoops.

"And they think they live in the real world?????"

LIC, you really need to stop talking about the "real world"... with each post you get further and further away from it...

i went to college with douthat. he's been harping on this inane point for over a decade. it is absolutely true that poor whites suffer from discrimination because they are poor (and not because they are Christian). but the beneficiaries of that discrimination are rich whites, not blacks and latinos, who still make up a very small fraction of attendees at top schools. moreover, asians suffer from discrimination to benefit rich white students--and at numbers far larger than anything that benefits blacks.

at Harvard only 7% of the student body is black--and that is the highest percentage at any ivy league school. the average is under 6%, or less than half the percentage of blacks in the overall population. meanwhile, rich whites still account for a large plurality of students, even though they make up a tiny percentage of the population.

Of course, as usual... the poor christians also have to blame the Jews. Yale and a bunch of the other ivies were all 15-20%+ Jewish when I was applying. I think Brown and Penn were in the mid 20s.

In the populace, Jews are under 2%. And this is with some discrimination (Princeton had announced quotas through the **70s** and others had not-so-announced)

You have to figure that when you let in the rich whities, then the athletes and legacies, and then the Jews, there isn't a lot left for the other whities.

and, happpy, I agree, totally. The poor christians shouldn't be blaming the blacks and hispanics...

"Of course, as usual... the poor christians also have to blame the Jews. Yale and a bunch of the other ivies were all 15-20%+ Jewish when I was applying. I think Brown and Penn were in the mid 20s.
In the populace, Jews are under 2%."

I'd guess a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that the Ivies are concentrated in the northeast, which happens to be the same area where most of the Jews are in this country as well.

actually in the mid-20th cent jews played the role in the college app process that asians do now--had acceptance been based purely on acedemic merit, the ivy league during that time would have been mostly jewish--sure would have been no bushes skull/bonesin around were the jews not kept down

same shit the asians face right here and now

appropriate fix today is to help those who accomplish academically in the face of poverty

admissions should be ethnically/racially blind--it's all about the benjamins

agreed that asians are now getting it, too...

but it wasn't just the mid-20th century. Again, ANNOUNCED quotas for Jews at Princeton in the 70s.... and we sure they unannounced are really gone?

Yeah they got rid of the announced quotas just in time to take away my planned excuse to my father ("Of course I couldn't get into an Ivy League school, don't you know there are quotas for Jews". To which he no doubt would have retorted that yes, he did hear that about Ivy League schools--which NFW could we have afforded anyway--but it WAS news to him that all the loser schools I applied for rejected me.

from princeton review....

looks like the Jews are everywhere!

coast to coast... even Stanford, Duke, Emory overflowing with the Chosen

Amherst 16%
Babson 26%
Boston U 20%
Brown U 22%
Bryn Mawr 17%
Cal St Northridge 14%
Carnegie Mellon 16%
Columbia 32%
Cornell U 16%
Curry C 41%
Dickinson 15%
Drew U 11%
Duke 18%
Emerson C 23%
Emory 24%
Georgetown U 23%
Harvard 26%
Lehigh 13%
Northwestern 14%
NYU 32%
Oberlin 28%
Penn St University Park 10%
Princeton U 12%
Skidmore 20%
Stanford 15%
Swarthmore 20%
Syracuse U 17%
U Chicago 16%
U Maryland College Park 22%
U Mass Amherst 13%
U Michigan 17%
U of Arizona 11%
U of Rochester 13%
U Pennsylvania 39%
U Wisconsin Madison 11%
UC Berkeley 13%
UCLA 12%
UVA 10%
Vassar 18%
Washington U St Louis 26%
Williams C 12%
Yale U 39%

It looks like the jews are less interested in attending Princeton than some of the other Ivies.

I don't think its an issue of "interested".... I think its an issue of "wanted".

Yale has a higher % of Jews than "NY Jew"???? Or Syracuse??? Who'd a thunk!

And Berkley is 13% Jewish? Plus what 35% Asian? Surprised the right wing nuts in Orange County haven't done what the left wing nuts were unsuccessful at in the 60s, bombing the place or at least shutting it down.

^^^ I went to Berkeley. Then, and now, the OC is FULL of Asian republicans, as is Berkeley, which why - famously - a majority of students voted for Reagan over Mondale and Bush over Clinton (and I believe Dole to boot...) and why the student senate is very often controlled by a center-right coalition. So thats why.

The asian UC %%% jumped incredibly when the courts ordered that admissions had to be race-blind. Whities seem to have suffered most.

somewhereelse, a lot of missimg statistics. For example, Swarthmore's entering class is 38% minorities. year after year. an east coast, (godforbid NY) Jewish student has no chance even if he walks on water.. I'm willing to bet my entire net worth (instead of blowing it on a NY coop) that most of their Jewish admits are from Minnesota and other geographically underrepresented states. Which does suggest a move two years before college for prestige-crazed parents. North Dakota, anyone?
Some symphony orchestras have theoretically instituted "blind" auditions. where the judges have no knowledge of the auditioner, not sex, not age (although they can recognize instruments). Imagine what a similar merit only based system would do to US college admissions. My rebellious kids refused to even apply to their IVY legacy school, but both turned out OK (I think).

wait where is the article where they got rid of quotas?? i missed that one.

it will be Asianville across all campuses if so..

Maybe there should be a test two decades after you receive the education, and perhaps a penalty for misusing it.
e.g. criminals, scholarship students who went into lucrative professions but never repaid the scholarship, people who use improper grammar like "irregardless", people take more vacation in a season that Europeans do all year, people who make no attempt to work but have only one child "My daughter had a hissy fit about her dress bc it didn't have enough colors", people who don't support their spouses when their in-laws die, etc.

Some of the universities are more hospitable, for example one of the Ivy League professors recently was maintaining that God was a white racist.

Hi, Greenberg!

Yale 39%?? It can't be that high.

(Considering Im a jewish college dropout,grading on a curve, that makes me a fry cook.)

Hi Alan. Aboutready went to Yale!

Yeah, Hillel's numbers are different...

Barnard College (New York, NY): 43.5%
Brandeis University (Waltham, MA): 61.7%
Brown University (Providence, RI): 25.0%
Columbia University (New York, NY): 25.0%
Cornell University (Ithaca, NY): 21.7%
Emory University (Atlanta, GA): 33.3%
Harvard University (Cambridge, MA): 30.0%
Long Island University — Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY): 21.8%
New York University (New York, NY): 20.8%
Northwestern University (Evanston, IL): 23.1%
Oberlin College (Oberlin, OH): 26.7%
Pratt Institute (Brooklyn, NY): 32.0%
Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY): 20.4%
The George Washington University (Washington, DC): 31.6%
Tufts University (Medford, MA): 31.6%
Tulane University (New Orleans, LA): 25.4%
University of Denver (Denver, CO): 20.0%
University of Hartford (West Hartford, CT): 31.9%
University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA): 30.8%
University of Rochester (Rochester, NY): 20.0%
Washington University in St. Louis (St. Louis, MO): 26.6%
Yale University (New Haven, CT): 22.6%
Yeshiva University (New York, NY): 93.5%

One of most embarrassing moments I recall experiencing in grad school was my Constitutional Law professor asking each member of the class to guess the percentage of the U.S. population that was Jewish. I guessed 15-20% and can only suppose that my estimate was simply based on composition of my classmates at each institution I attended up through grad school. When the professor told the class that the actual percentage of the U.S. population that was Jewish was between 2-3%, I was stunned. (While it turned out many of my classmates were under the same impression I had been, my ignorance on this point really embarrassed me, and I continue to cringe each time I think about it). In any event, the professor then asked us if we thought it appropriate to limit the number of Jewish students because they were disproportionately represented in higher education, and that is how we began our discussion of the constitutionality of affirmative action.

How did it end?

how will it end? they become too crazy again

jason, i can't believe u went to ucb, you must have been benefit from the AA

Wow, on top of being a retard with limited grammar skills and worse math skills, being indoctrinate of Berkeley, and not having a backyard, he's also been in AA.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/coca-cola-apologizes-vitaminwater-bottle-cap-read-you-retard-152548