<p>If people are truly interested in regards to AA and want to see their blood pressure go through the roof as mine would do as I finished each chapter, then I highly, highly recommend people to read:</p>
<p>The Affirmative Action Hoax by Steven Farron.</p>
<p>The numbers are worse than most people imagine. It makes you wonder why we are even bothering? I'm a parent to a very good student who does not have a hook like AA to help him.</p>
<p>The majority of Ivy League students are white. The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of Ivy League students are white, or Asian. Why can't anyone comprehend why a high volume of supremely disproportionate number of applicants would lead to substantially lower admit rates for those demographics? Even if AA didn't exist and The top schools were nothing but whites and Asians (doubt it would be so, as the majority of URM applicants are quite qualified) the chances of your kid getting into his/her top choice is still very low.</p>
<p>And I suggest you read: At</a> the elite colleges - dim white kids - The Boston Globe</p>
<p>NearL,</p>
<p>What does the fact that "a majority" of Ivy league students are white (& Asian) have to do with the fact that race based policies by elite universities is implemented to an extremely unfair advantage against whites and asians? The two are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>I wholly disagree with your claim that elite universities implement an "extremely unfair advantage against whites and Asian" on the basis that many, in fact the vast majority, of students accepted to those very same schools are white and Asian. If there was an extremely "unfair advantage" against whites and Asians they would represent a small number of admits. Or every demographic would have an equal amount of admits, but they don't. In fact, Asians are supremely over-represented, as are Jews (among the white population), and Africans and Caribbean (among the black population). Those groups tend to perform well academically and are thus represented accordingly.</p>
<p>I don't believe that your problem is with discrimination itself, otherwise, you'd be annoyed with legacies, athletes and other special admits. But you're not. You're just harping on "race-based discrimination" because it's one of the few you perceive to affect your demographic. Never mind if rich ORMs, legacy ORMs and special admit ORMs get in. Just don't let the Hispanics get over Harvard's gate, right?</p>
<p>Check the link I've given you. The rich "dim" white kids are the people receiving AA. Where's your tirade against them? Are you hiding bigotry behind anger against AA?</p>
<p>Here's a history lesson: The majority has had Affirmative Action in the form of institutionalized, and later unspoken, racism for ten decades. But you'd like to strip everyone else of the discrimination you benefit (and continue to benefit from) within a generation.</p>
<p>I disagree with NearL.</p>
<p>If only affirmative action were abolished, Asians would take up 80 percent of those placements in top universities currently offered to African Americans and Hispanics. How can you deny that affirmative action doesn't hurt Asians the most?</p>
<p>Here's the source</p>
<p>You can "wholly disagree" all you want, yet the proof is in the pudding. Not to mention the evidence has been uncovered via several different law suits that have gone to SCOTUS, for starters. Please do not lecture me on something that I have researched thoroughly and pretend to know where my "problem lies". </p>
<p>Your entire rant is ludicrous on its face and it is clear you are way too emotional to make any sense. You start off chastising me and disagreeing with my well founded premise, throw out hidden racism as my reasons for bringing up the topic and then end off with the "history lesson" that thanks to "institutional racism", we have to accept this unfairness lest we be viewed unfavorably.</p>
<p>Here's a history lesson for you NearL, I am NOT 200 years old. Far from it actually. I have not had this great benefit of institutionalized and unspoken racism you speak of that now I and my offspring have to pay for. Excellent generalizations however, on your part. Nice show of bigotry as well. </p>
<p>As to legacy, they represent smallish numbers and their scores have been found to be in keeping with the general admits of a school. A touch better if I remember correctly. As to athletes, well, geez, that sword certainly cuts both ways. Doesn't it? Are you saying only white athletes are given a break on scores?</p>
<p>The Affirmative Action Hoax by Steven Farron.</p>
<p>Read the book. The numbers are far worse than anyone really is aware of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why does the data always seem to be from that 10 plus year old study?
[/quote]
Can you cite any evidence that things have changed drastically during the past 10 years?</p>
<p>So the onus of proof shifts to me? If we are talking about MY kids, I want some info relevent to admissions in 2008. If I remember correctly the model was built on numbers from like 1980's, or maybe even 1976? I am under the impression that socioeconomic diversity has become a bigger priority since then, although I can't quote the numbers form that study about the "other" affirmative action.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I figure my kids will be alright. I am more concerned about the vast majority of minority kids, and what their plight means for all of us, right now, and over the next few generations. I usually don't post on these AA threads because it seems clear to me there will be a difference of opinion depending on whether you are most concerned about one person, or all of us. I think the number of kids benefitting from AA ( 900 + 792 kids in the study posted? 1353 Asian kids more than the 2369 admitted? I'm rushing...I have patients waiting...) is a drop in the bucket compared to those in dire straits. I work at a juvenille hall where white kids are so rare they are called "the white kid'. Three of the four boys I saw last weeks mothers were murdered. I'm sure there are those who say thats where they are "qualified" to be. I'm sure you'd be willing to give them a few SAT points for college admission. That is generations away from what those boys need.They don't even assume they will be alive in a month, let alone able to benefit from an education. Every day I think there but for the grace of God go me and mine. Some of my relatives weren't so fortunate. Why was I? From where I sit it's a complicated problem with complicated solutions. I am past college. I get to devote my career to doing something about it on a larger scale.</p>
<p>I wrote a long reply to mugo, but then I realized that he/she was a troll, or disgruntled member using a sock puppet account and got rid of it. It's a waste arguing with a member that can't comprehend the accumulation of generational wealth and privilege; doesn't understand that the past affects the present; won't admit to their bigotry; advocates a book that's considered a joke among academics; can't grasp the fact that whites make up the majority of admits in the bottom quartile at elite schools; and defends discriminatory practices as long as they benefit whites and Asians. </p>
<p>I've said my piece already. I'm done dealing feeding the troll: My well-reasoned arguments can't amend his/her intellectual anorexia.</p>
<p>Stupid kid: It's 5% man. I'd take diversity over 5%. I didn't bother applying to UCB because of its dearth of diversity.</p>
<p>discrimination was the problem in the first place. and now AA is using more discrimination to fix that discrimination.</p>
<p>I like the concept.</p>
<p>I looked at the "dim white kids" article, and it refers to athletic recruits, developmental admits, and legacies. Very few of the people on this thread support these things. I suspect the only reason they aren't bringing it up is that it has nothing to do with this thread.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap,</p>
<p>Yours is one of the myths that is exposed in this book that I have mentioned TWICE, yet no one wants to acknowledge it. The books is extremely well cited with recent evidence. The thinking that AA helps these poor underprivileged black or hispanic youths is unfounded. It does nothing for youths in "dire straights".</p>
<p>A school that's majority is white and Asian just isn't enough, I suppose. Stanford wouldn't be discriminatory if it was 90% white and Asian with a 1380-1550 SAT range, would it?</p>
<p>What myth did i refer to? The myth that the prisons are overpopulated with black men? I don't spend my time thinking about affirmative action. The small fraction of kids who can take adavntage of it at elite schools are basically irrelevent right now in the big picture. I hope they will be relevant in the future. I spend my time trying to address things I can doing something about. Those boys in juvenille hall are never going to see college. I just hope they will make it without a life of crime, without getting murdered or murdering someone else. Maybe they will have a kid who will finish high school. You want me to read a book that tells me me and my children are doomed? Because that's the way I read it. A book that doesn't tell me why me and my kids can score high on an SAT or how I can take advantage of my genes to make things better for my kin who can't. I don't need to read that book. I live with it. Whatever.</p>
<p>NearL's drivel is unfortunately too common place. Simple ad hominem smears with no meat behind his assertions. Please, do tell why this book is a "joke" amongst "academics". A fallacious argument, mind you, though attempt to entertain me.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, </p>
<p>Knowledge and truth reigns supreme to me. If you like to make decisions on lies and misinformation, then you won't be getting very far. Kinda like those nasty WMD in Iraq. Know what I mean?</p>
<p>Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars racial discrimination by any school that receives federal funds—a category that includes practically every private university given the ubiquity of federal research grants, scholarship aid, student loan guarantees, and countless other forms of direct and indirect financial assistance.</p>
<p>"A school that's majority is white and Asian just isn't enough, I suppose. Stanford wouldn't be discriminatory if it was 90% white and Asian with a 1380-1550 SAT range, would it?"</p>
<p>Stanford would be discriminatory if it practiced discrimination... like the way it is now.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap,</p>
<p>You stated:</p>
<p>"You want me to read a book that tells me me and my children are doomed? Because that's the way I read it. A book that doesn't tell me why me and my kids can score high on an SAT or how I can take advantage of my genes to make things better for my kin who can't. I don't need to read that book. I live with it. Whatever."</p>
<p>You've made a DECISION to not read the book simply based on presumptions. Is that how you practice child psych? Ignoring information? BTW, I'm a Cardiologist so spare me the attempts at superiority. </p>
<p>Racial discrimination is ILLEGAL. What's so hard to understand about that? It does nothing to make up for past wrongs. It simply creates NEW wrongs.</p>