Admission Process: Ideas, Reform, and Criticism - A Debate

College Confidential Community
41

<p>As someone who wrote a peer rec for one of my friends (her Davidson app), I'd like to say that the peer rec idea isn't the greatest one.</p>

<p>First, kids ("peers") are busy enough handling their own applications.</p>

<p>Second, how fair is it to judge someone on the writing ability of their friends? Kids at amazing high schools will have amazing friends to write great recs for them. Kids at less stellar high schools might not have the same kind of people to choose from.</p>

<p>Third, kids unlikely to be critical, especially of a friend. I have a close friend applying to Dartmouth, who will probably ask me to write his rec. I don't think he's a good fit academically for Dartmouth, but I'd feel awful either refusing to write him a rec, or writing bad things in my rec. Think about how the situation would be even touchier if it were a boyfriend or girlfriend being asked.</p>

42

<p>i agree with dawn and willow
the purpose of affirmative action is to provide ppl at a disadvantage with aid into getting into college so that they can overcome the difficulties imposed on thyem by the folly of their birth
it isnt fair to screw over poor white kids who are at a huge disadvantage economically because they are white
as it stands now, affirmative action isnt really correcting or solving anything
most black people that get into the elite college are either recent immigrant from africa and people whos parents are reasonably well off and supportive
the current system does not give aid to the econmically disadvantaged people (minority or white) who need it the most
i see no need to actively loosen admissions standards for minorities because the applicant pool should provide a reasonable sample of the population, thus allowing for the necessary diversity
i realize minorites are more economically disadvantaged (statistically) thatn white, but this would be made up for by an economic affirmative action plan
there really isnt any reason to make race a factor, and for those who think race should be a factor, please let me know why you feel that way</p>

<p>my two cents, sorry if my post is offensive, i tried to be politcally correct, but when dealing with race issues you always end up offending someone</p>

43

<p>Yes, the applicant pool SHOULD provide a reasonable sample of the population, but unfortunately it doesn't. And it's important to realize that affirmative action is also meant to help achieve diversity on college campuses, in addition to aiding the disadvantaged. And while I agree that being born poor is indeed a folly of birth, so too is being born a URM. "Disadvantage" can't - and shouldn't - only be measured by economic status or only by race. Unfortunately, regardless of economic status, being black or Latino is a disadvantage all by itself in this world, and one's race does affect one's experiences in life in any case - therefore it's a significant and relevant piece of information - just like economic status - that may fairly be taken into consideration in admissions.</p>

44

<p>DJ_Mack: It's disgusting that you should ever be subjected to garbage like shepsports5's IM, let alone at a time when you should be celebrating a well-earned triumph. Congratulations to you, and kudos to Harvard for recognizing real merit when they see it.</p>

45

<p>Wow, powerful message from DJ_Mack. </p>

<p>There was a suggestion in the thread that some countries have unified and standardized the college admission process. I have lived in one of those countries (Taiwan) for six years over the last three decades. I liked some aspects of the former joint entrance examination in Taiwan very well. Kids in Taiwan used to brag that their college entrance exams were so scrupulously objective that even the president's son couldn't get into college through "connections" (this was back when Taiwan was still a one-party dictatorship, and the president wasn't directly elected). The examination system then made clear what one had to do to get into college: learn a lot of challenging material thoroughly. </p>

<p>I know and love hundreds of Taiwanese people, and married one twenty-one years ago. Today, I still think that most Taiwanese of my generation got a better secondary education, in a MUCH poorer country (then) than Americans in my generation. The uniform college entrance tests, coupled with a strong cultural desire for higher education, promoted a general excellence in secondary education unlike anything I have ever seen proposed for the United States. </p>

<p>But for all that, I referred above to the FORMER examination system in Taiwan. Taiwan has democratized, and that means the majority of the people have spoken up about the system. Now there are more vague paths into higher education, and LOTS of college spaces for young people. Even today, the standard path into the agreed-upon list of "top" schools in Taiwan involves learning lots of challenging academic content, but there are many more ways to get into SOME college. And today lots and lots of kids from Taiwan go straight to the United States for undergraduate study, which was rare in my day. (Taiwanese students have long been a big group in graduate programs in the United States.) I'm not so sure that it's bad to let voters in a democratic country decide what their system should be. Maybe most people are a little happier that way. </p>

<p>I read online posts from persons my age from India who describe the Joint Entrance Examination system used there to fill spaces in the Indian Institute of Technology campuses as more meritocratic than the United States college entrance system. I have no idea how many abcd children make a serious effort to apply to IIT, but I actually have looked up what the requirements might be for a totally non-Indian American citizen to apply to study there. Different systems produce different results, and sometimes the best way to get a good education is to live under several different systems. </p>

<p>To sum up, the basic problem in any country is that spaces in the "top" schools in that country are fewer than the number of eager applicants. No one can count on Harvard as a sure thing, it appears to me. But no one who attends and graduates from Harvard can count on life success as a sure thing, either. Everyone has to face new challenges every day (said the graduate of a Big Ten state university). As the forum moderator wrote, it is possible to have a satisfying career in professional baseball without being a member of the top team. (He mentioned the Red Sox, didn't he [grin]?) </p>

<p>Best wishes to all of you in further college applications, and to all who surf these boards in their endeavors throughout life.</p>

46

<p>caramelkisses- how can you argue that being born a urm in today;s society puts you at a disatvantage especially one equivalent to that of being born into an impovershed family? i realize that there is still a lot of racism in society, and that being a white male i will never know whats its like to be minority, but as far as intituationalized racism and disadvantage goes for URMs, i think it is practically nonexistant. the only disadvantage i can percieve in being a URM is that you are statistically more likely to be poor, but under an economic AA plan this would be accounted for. i agree with dawn that affirmative action based on race is insulting to minorite like her who have entirely pulled their own weight.
caramel, if you support affirmative action based on race than you cannot choose to be offended when ppl tell you "you only got into harvard because you are black"
an economic AA plan gets rid of any ability for embittered applicants to make such comments as well as gets rid of the injustice of providing an unfair advantage to those URMs who have been born to affluent parents and given an excellent education that are somehow percieved as being at an institutionalized disadvantage</p>

47

<p>I never said it was a disadvantage equivalent to being born poor, I said it was a disadvantage of its own. And lack of clearly institutionalized racism does not in any way show that minorities' only possible disadvantage can be economic. It never ceases to amaze me - even as often as I hear it - that people think to themselves "Ok, Civil Rights movement is over, equal rights for all, everything's perfect now, let's all move on." I can't think of a better way to put this, so I'll just say that being a minority is psychologically damaging in America - obviously to different extents in different cases, but it is definitely a factor. That has less to do with economic status than with culture. And no, that isn't an excuse for anything or a sympathy ploy - it's simply the truth. </p>

<p>And personally, if given a choice between a few embittered applicants having a damaged perception of me and seeing more minorities with the opportunity to reach higher education, then sorry but I choose the latter. </p>

<p>Besides, no one "only" gets into Harvard because of any one thing - so that statement is flawed in itself.</p>

48

<br>


<br>

<p>perhaps this is due to the 'soft bigotry of low expectations' that comes out of progressive AA policies. =)</p>

49

<p>i agreed with Mack and Stefo</p>

<p>Using an economic AA policy would be a better way to defined diversity and struggles because it's more legitimate. Just because you're black or hispanic doesn't mean you've had a terrible life. But I can safely say that because you're living beneath the poverty line, because your mom is too old to work and that you're on welfare, medicare, housing, and food stamps you must be having a tough time surviving.</p>

<p>I think many people would also benefit from an socioeconomic AA policy because it justly rewards tho who have the disadvantage. It would give those who have had to work hard to survive a break from life. And I know you can tell me that life is unfair, and suck it up, but I think everyone deserves a reward if they rightfully earn it.</p>

<p>Whether people want to believe it or not... the main reason why people of color face more disadvantages in this country is primarily socioeconomic and cultural isolation, not race. The bottom line is that the only way our country can overcome racism is to realize that we have a persistent belief that race and culture are somehow linked. To move forward together, we must deracialize ourselves and look for more substantive ways to categorize ourselves for the purposes of social policy.</p>

<p>I'm not going to sit here wishing I was a URM so that I could have gotten an acceptance. I'm not going to whine either. Initially when I got my deferral, I felt very disappointment. Disappointed because I never received any breaks in my life. It seems like I'm constantly being thrown into a hurdle, a setback to test my will. For once, I would like to see my effort being rewarded. I come from an enviroment where I'm forced to have 2 jobs during the school year to help pay for my tuition and my family's financial situation. Sometimes, I wish I wasn't poor so that I could develop my other interests such as painting or creative writing. But because of the circumstances, I can't. I don't have the money or the resource. Yes my SAT scores are low. Two reasons. 1. I didn't have the money for the classes 2. I didn't practice and that was my fault, but because I had other things going on in my life such as the different roles I play and the different activities that I participate in that spending 3 hrs on a single test doesn't seem worth it. Literally, there was no time. Not only am I an employee, a student, and a researcher, I am also a 2nd parent to my little sister. My parents are old and they don't speak english, so I go to those parents-teacher conference. I talked to my sister's counselor to resolve issues. You see...people who are poor don't even have a chance to express to colleges their situations, thus colleges think that I'm rich and that I have the same opportunities as everyone does, and that's just straight up BS. I don't want pity. I just want them to see me in my context. After all, that is how applicants are supposed to be evaluated right? Against their own context? We live in America, a land full of opportunities, but to say that everyone has equal access to opportunities is to mask a lie.</p>

50

<p>Caramel has a good point. Simply being a minority does automatically put you at a disadvantage because there is still a great deal of discrimination in this country whether people want to believe it or not, which can often impede a person's success, academic or otherwise. Nevertheless, I don't think that AA really makes up for this discrimination. AA really is a form of discrimination against the non-URM, and personally, I do not see how two wrongs make a right. That just leads to twice as much conflict. Although AA does help many URMs who deserve a boost, it does not stop them from being discriminated against outside of the college admissions process anyway. I still believe that economic AA would cover the people, minority or not, who truly need the help. As others said, the primary modern-day result of the discrimination throughout this country's history is that minorites tend to be much more economically disadvantaged. Economic AA would account for this without making race a factor. The minorities who are well-off most likely do not need help, but the disadvantaged minorities and majoritiy do.</p>

51

<p>Uh oh, i smell inflammatory AA thred in the making...
Private institutions are private, meaning, they can do whatever the hell they want. Let's force Smith to open schools to men! Will that work? Hell, no. State (statutary or federal) Universities must abide by whatever, but since we're talking about the BEST colleges (HYP), leave 'em be. There's no need to reform 'cause almost nothing can be done.</p>

52

<br>


<br>

<p>I would agree with you there if those low expectations hadn't existed before the advent of AA policies, and didn't continue to exist in situations where AA is not likely to be on anyone's mind. </p>

<p>And thanks for recgonizing my point, DJ_Mack. I'm simply saying that I believe that everyone who's been disadvantaged in some way, whether due to race or economics or both, should have that disadvantage recognized in some way. There's no sense in quibbling over whether race or socioeconomic status is the "greater" or "more significant" disadvantage, the point is that the disadvantage exists. And that's why I think AA should take BOTH race and economic status into account. (And also for the purposes of diversity, but that seems to be a separate issue from what we're discussing here.) </p>

<p>Agree with me or don't, it's just my opinion.</p>

53

<p>The only thing I have a REAL problem with is affirmative action. I also don't agree with recruiting atheletes, although I can understand the necessity of it since it's Division I</p>

54

<p>For me the one of the greatest unfairnesses is the advantage of those who have alumni "connections". It's a criminal action.</p>

55

<p>also, caramel argues that minorites are at a disadvantage and thus should recieve AA, but shouldnt this philosophy extend to several other groups as well? I mean homosexuals face discrimination, and i think this discrimination is MUCH worse than any discrimination a minority might recieve, because it is often institutionalized. However, no college asks you for your sexual orientation so that they can do AA on that.
Basically it comes down to one thing: is the discrimination you are recieving affecting your education?
college is about education, and it should only loosen admission standrads for those whose life circumstance place you at an educational disadvantage
being poor puts you in a bad school, leading to an educational disadvantage
being a minority however, does not really affect your quality of education (unless you are poor)
college is about education, not pity
harvard tries to make sure everyone gets an equal educational opportunity, they shouldnt loosen your admissions standards out of pity
there are many many kinds of groups that deal with bigotry, and unless this affect their quality of education, harvard should not actively help them get in
like nghi said, a lot of ppl who have been through trying circumstances dont like being pitied and wouldnt want to tell harvard their circumstances so they can get a pity vote
so isnt kind of wierd that minorites (only one of several discriminated groups) are allowed to plea for a pity vote only by checking a box instead of writing an essay?</p>

56

<p>Being a minority greatly affects your education ... It's incredibly naive to say that it doesn't, and I'm actually quite suprised that someone here would actually say that. Being a minority impacts the way teachers view you, and unfortunately, among some minorities, academic achievement is viewed negatively and successful students are often ostracized. There's a difference between "pity" and acknowledgement of disadvantage ... if there wasn't, then economic AA would be "pity" as well. And I've actually always thought there SHOULD be a question regarding sexual orientation on college applications. I also think that's an important part of what makes up a person and may be a real hardship for someone, and, if they want, they should be able to present that to be taken under consideration. </p>

<p>I never said that AA shouldn't extend to all truly disadvantaged groups, we just happened to be discussing race. Any truly significant disadvantages should be taken into account (within reason - i.e. not "I was bitten by a mosquito at the age of 12 and therefore am disadvantaged). I feel that anyone who's ever been oppressed or deprived in any real way, due to race, economic status, sexual orientation, gender, WHATEVER should be able to convey that and have it considered.</p>

57

<p>I think this year the admissions process has messed up. No one (very few) who applied E.D. at my school got into any of the colleges they wanted to. This has never happened and I am worried that I will get deferred tomorrow.</p>

58

<p>It probably does seem like the process is messed up, Gta. It seems like college admissions gets more and more difficult every year, because the numbers of people applying seem to keep increasing. On kinda another note though, it should have an interesting affect on many "safety" and 2nd tier schools who receive all of the highly qualified students who didn't make it into the top schools. It may create a whole new class of elite colleges, just due to sheer numbers. Any thoughts?</p>

59

<p>caramelkisses, that's an interesting way to put it but obviosuly it is a bit extreme. I mean the safety schools that kids from my school apply to are like BU , Tufts(for some), etc. Most apply to Ivy leagues, duke, stanford, etc. I'm one of the "stupider" people in my school and I'm applied to Miami E.D.</p>

60

<p>Good luck with Miami! I'd love to be down there in the warmth ... </p>

<p>Yeah I suppose it might seem a bit extreme, but I didn't just make up the idea myself, I read it somewhere (no, I don't remember where). Just a thought.</p>