Affirmative Action Ethics

<p>Fizik, really, you are not going to counter decades of statistics, specifically from my school district, with your selective sample pool of first person encounters in some A) Physics classes at a B) Texas university. Really blacks rarely take part in either option A or B, nor do they the wonderful AP and Honors options even available.</p>

<p>It is not my job nor ability to go down to South Park, Houston and teach students to read, which I doubt you do either. I have enough on my hand in Roxbury and Dorchester, where I do, at age 18, run a history/archeological camp for Boston inner-city students through the museum of Afro-American History.</p>

<p>But really, your viewpoint sems so outside-looking in that I need to ask:</p>

<p>1) Did you get your education in the states? Then you would understand the blight of the Houston School District that was just desegregated when you were a teenager.</p>

<p>2) Does your son attend a private, exurban, or public magnet school? How many APs or magnet programs?</p>

<p>3) What do you know about Houston all-black high schools like Jones High School? Schools so bad that white parents had the schools only magnet program moved, so now you have an underfunded, black public high school with no magnet program in Houston. That exist 5 times over for blaack high schools in Houston, not once for a white-majority school.</p>

<p>Do me a favor, on the way home from work, drive through South Park and take a tour of Jones High School...tell me what you think?</p>

<p>The fact that something such as AA ,whose effect on college admissions is trivial given it is extremely subjective, is still discussed so ravagely and hated so intensly (Peter Parker) shows just how sensitive issues on race are in a society we want to call equal. I can tell you right now, as a black male, AA didnt help me because my white counterparts got into schools that I was rejected from and I did have better stats. As far as the racial politics I look at it like this: Does skin color matter? Yes. Then dont complain it doesnt only when it comes to AA. I mean c'mon really, there are only like 5 black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, thats 1 PERCENT. There is very little racial equality at the top or diversity for that matter, and yet people feel it is the ill of society for trying to address it.</p>

<p>I'll try to briefly state the pro-AA arguments I have heard just to ensure I am understanding you guys correctly and am not misinterpreting your statements.</p>

<p>Sybbies arguments for AA:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Many elite universities support AA because it brings beneficial 'diversity.'
First of all, I already responded that race is one of many factors of diversity, and that skin pigment hardly constitutes anything of substance and should be of least concern when building a diverse class.
Secondly, yes, the top universitise (minus Caltech) support AA the same reason every show on the Disney Channel has one male, one female, and one character of different race (white or black, depending). Both institutions fashion this dynamic as advertisemnts to appeal to all groups as well as create 'feel good, look every race is holding hands, world peace' bumper stickers. It's to the universities' advantage to create these pictures, and simply attempting to stand on moral highgrounds to support their policies is B.S.</p></li>
<li><p>Many big businesses support AA or want more diversity.
Big business supports AA? Really? Not the last time I checked. BB votes Republican, hell, it IS the Republican party, and usually against AA. Yet even if Big business DID support AA, why would that mean anything? I'm sure big business would LOVE to eliminate the minimum wage. Fair? Well, that depends on your political ideology. But I think you get the point.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Courtjesters argument for AA: colleges should mirror the US population
I thought I already went over this but this is absurd. Does you high school mirror the population? Of course not. It has nothing to do with anything like 'equal footing.' I'm sure if you did demographics for multiple universities, you'll find that states arent proportionally represented. Does that mean North Dakota students have an advantage over South Dakota students into getting into College X because there's more of them? Of course not. There are an array of factors and variables, including propability, that stops colleges from mirroring the population of the United States. You may find on a given year, that University X has a greater proportion of soccer players than the United states. Or oboe players or underrepresented. Or this school only has 0.0001 percent of its class in the Thespian society. Scewing the numbers make each school a 'mini U.S' is simply arbitary.</p>

<p>Cre8tive1's argument for AA: I know an all-black school that is really, really terrible.</p>

<p>Good for you! I know a mostly white school that is really, really terrible: my school!! Yet in case you still believe the school you know is much worse, I don't think AA is going to fix your school, or teach kids how to read.</p>

<p>More of MY reasons for the abolition of AA:
1. It is discriminatory against whites, jews, and asians, but it is also discriminatory against the URMs themselves: it teaches them that they need help to compete with others.</p>

<ol>
<li>It devalues the abilities of URMs at high level institutions. Someone already posted on this thread that they felt the minorities they worked with at a top university had inferior projects to their peers. Yet even worse, there are many minorities that truly earned getting into elite colleges, yet someone is going to look at them and say "Oh, affirmative action got you in, huh?"</li>
</ol>

<p>Affirmative action is a far cry from remedying inequality among the races. In fact, at the Unviersity of Chicago, there has been entensive research showing that 'income' or perceived 'success' (according to surveys) is affected by whether or not one attended A COLLEGE, but is not related to the PRESTIGE or SELECTIVITY of the college. So how is any economic or social disparity going to be resolved by sending underqualified applicants to elite universities?</p>

<p>It's like someone has meningitis so you amputate their leg. YOUR TREATMENT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM, IN FACT, IN CAUSES UNDUE PAIN.</p>

<p>Cre8tive1's argument for AA...</p>

<p>What was my arguement? No, I said admitly that AA was a poor solution, but that AA is the wrong problem to target. The problem to target is a our primary and secondary education system, not bark at higher education for an attempt to make up for the government's shortcoming.</p>

<p>You didn't read an ounce of what I stated. Really Peter you could just go back into your box if you're not going to even read an arguement you're trying to counter. READ BOY, IT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO!!!</p>

<p>"In fact, at the Unviersity of Chicago, there has been entensive research showing that 'income' or perceived 'success' (according to surveys) is affected by whether or not one attended A COLLEGE, but is not related to the PRESTIGE or SELECTIVITY of the college. So how is any economic or social disparity going to be resolved by sending underqualified applicants to elite universities?"</p>

<p>-That’s a pretty weak argument to me. I mean, why pay $50,000 for an elite school if you get the same benefits from a random state school for 5,000? Heck, why should anyone go to an elite school if it’s not worth the money, if all colleges bring the same relative benefits in society? The opportunity cost of attending an elite school would be so great for top students that it would make no logical sense to attend one. </p>

<p>-Also, elite schools are colleges too. Thus, if going to college is what defines perceived success, why does it matter if elite schools are admitting people with lower scores, as, from your very own argument, just attending a college is what brings said perceived success???</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sybbies arguments for AA:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all they are not "sybbie's arugment" for AA the are the arguments of Harvard University, Brown University, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University (must have missed that part).</p>

<p>
[quote]
So how is any economic or social disparity going to be resolved by sending underqualified applicants to elite universities?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, at the Unviersity of Chicago, there has been entensive research showing that 'income' or perceived 'success' (according to surveys) is affected by whether or not one attended A COLLEGE, but is not related to the PRESTIGE or SELECTIVITY of the college. So how is any economic or social disparity going to be resolved by sending underqualified applicants to elite universities?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>According to the Journal on Blacks in HIgher Education: </p>

<p>Harvard University, traditionally one of the nation's strongest supporters of affirmative action, has produced the highest black student graduation rate of any college or university in the nation. But for some unexplained and possibly immaterial reason, Harvard slipped to second place in 2004. But now Harvard's black student graduation rate has increased to 95 percent, once again the highest among U.S. colleges and universities. </p>

<p>Amherst College, a small liberal arts college in western Massachusetts, now has a black student graduation rate of 94 percent, the second highest in the nation. Last year Amherst had bested Harvard by two percentage points. Princeton University ranks third in the nation with a black student graduation rate of 93 percent. Six other highly ranked colleges and universities in the United States posted a black student graduation rate of 90 percent or above. They are Wellesley College, Brown University, Northwestern University, Washington University, Wesleyan University, and Williams College. </p>

<p>Eleven other high-ranking institutions have a black student graduation above 85 percent. They are Stanford University, Yale University, Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Columbia University, Duke University, Georgetown University, Smith College, Swarthmore College, the University of Virginia, and Wake Forest University. </p>

<p>Academically selective institutions are almost always strongly committed to affirmative action in admissions, yet at the same time they tend to deliver a high black student graduation rate. ***Obviously, this undercuts the assertion made by many conservatives that black students admitted to our most prestigious colleges and universities under race-conscious admissions programs are incapable of competing with their white peers and should instead seek admissions at less academically rigorous schools. The fact that almost all entering black students at Harvard, Amherst, Princeton, and several other highly ranked colleges and universities go on to earn their diplomas shows that African Americans do compete successfully at our nation's most prestigious institutions of higher learning.</p>

<p>Five of the nation's highest-ranked colleges and universities actually have a higher graduation rate for black students than for white students. According to the latest statistics from Mount Holyoke College, Pomona College, Smith College, Wellesley College, and Macalester College, a black student on these campuses is more likely to complete the four-year course of study and receive a diploma than is a white student.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
It devalues the abilities of URMs at high level institutions. Someone already posted on this thread that they felt the minorities they worked with at a top university had inferior projects to their peers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you, I must now bow my head in shame to know that my 3.92 degree gpa from Cornell makes me inferior (gosh if there only some sort of grade inflation). I guess I'm never going to amount to anything because my inferiority has only allowed me to complete 2 masters and to be a current Phd student with a straight 4.0 gpa (so much for being at the bottom of the classs). My child will forever be cared for life because she only had near perfect scores and perfect grades, coming from a single parent house hold and evn though she is a rising junior she won't be able to hold her own at that Ivy league school she attends (I knew that I should have been more firm in stating having those couple of A-s intermixed with all of those A's would be her downfall ).</p>

<p>
[quote]
That’s a pretty weak argument to me. I mean, why pay $50,000 for an elite school if you get the same benefits from a random state school for 5,000? Heck, why should anyone go to an elite school if it’s not worth the money, if all colleges bring the same relative benefits in society? The opportunity cost of attending an elite school would be so great for top students that it would make no logical sense to attend one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The University of Chicago's conclusion was that the main purpose, given this data, may be simply "learning for the sake of learning." Aka, learning material not as a means to an end but simply for the process itself. And if you think about it, many things in college, especially LACs, will not directly prepare you for your career. Yet besides this conclusion the University of Chicago came up with, I feel that many people choose more selective colleges because they want to be challenged, they want to be around smarter peers, they like the "brand name" or "prestige," or they simply like many non-academic factors of the college. None of which contribute to future salary or success! And YES, a State U graduate can land just as many great jobs as an Ivy grad. Now there are other desirable qualities in attending elite universities, but unfortunately, none of them will somehow heal minorities economic or social scars. The prospect is laughable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, elite schools are colleges too. Thus, if going to college is what defines perceived success, why does it matter if elite schools are admitting people with lower scores, as, from your very own argument, just attending a college is what brings said perceived success???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why have college admissions at all? To make sure the student can handle the work, and that the smartest or most abmitious can be put in the most challenging and beneficial environment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Eleven other high-ranking institutions have a black student graduation above 85 percent. They are Stanford University, Yale University, Dartmouth College, Davidson College, Columbia University, Duke University, Georgetown University, Smith College, Swarthmore College, the University of Virginia, and Wake Forest University.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, most of the colleges you listed have grade inflation for ALL students, which even allows all double-legacy student athletes to pass without too much trouble. Ever hear of the gentleman's C at Harvard? I'm pretty sure straight Cs will allow one to pass. I mean, its certainly to the University's advantage to have a higher graduation rate; it makes others perceive the university beter. For chrissake, its a factor on the UNSWR (stupid as those rankings may be). Yet anyway, many of those elite institutions even admit and recognize that many, many rejectees would be CAPABLE to do the work there, but there is simply not enough room. But it may be fairer to let the best applicants get in regardless of race.</p>

<p>Oh, and btw, don't categorize me with conservatives. I'm very, very liberal (and also a Democrat) and simply disagree with this one position the Democratic party holds on AA. I know it doesn't really matter, but I find that usually their is a bad stigma with conservatives.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, most of the colleges you listed have grade inflation for ALL students, which even allows all double-legacy student athletes to pass without too much trouble.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why do you keep referring back to "me" and what "I' have listed. None of this is about "me" as I am just reporting the documented data. It seems apparent that you did not even open the link and read the article because you are not even remotely interested in what the article has to say because you are only interested in stats and information that reinforces your point of view.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, most of the colleges you listed have grade inflation for ALL students, which even allows all double-legacy student athletes to pass without too much trouble. Ever hear of the gentleman's C at Harvard? I'm pretty sure straight Cs will allow one to pass.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is an overwhelming likelihood that the double legacy student athlete you refer to who is graduating with a gentlemen's C, is probably white.</p>

<p>BTW, U of Chicago has a black graduation rate of 80%</p>

<p>I am not attacking you at all, or referring to anything about you. I have never attacked your credibility or character even remotely. I may have cited data you have presented, and used the pronoun 'you' to make it easier for everyone to understand what data I'm talking about.</p>

<p>And the only reason I mentioned a double legacy student athlete was to demonstrate that even the most likely least qualified students can pass at top schools; it had nothing to do with the persons's skin color.</p>

<p>It's funny how you cite UChicago's black graduation rate of 80%, as if that were new information compared to the black graduation rates of other elite universities already mentioned, which I have already discussed. Perhaps it's some attempt to be witty by listing the school whose research I have used in opposition to AA, even though I am certain UChicago advertises that it support affirmative action. Anyhow, in respone to that figure, see my above post.</p>

<p>Citygal5, before you remove AA, why don't you solve these problems first?
The only really benefactor of ending AA right now are people like you, which graduate from schools that perform at levels where government not only certified taht your students have learn the basics (700 API) but also your students are deemed to be proficient in what they learn (800 API) where as my school district average (560 API) Below basic level, and subtract Skyline and the Academy over in Piedmont (white school), you have a (480 API).</p>

<p>70% of the middle schools in this district failed to be able to teach English at basic level. 9 out 57 had students at basic level, and on lly 7 out of 57 had the average students proficient in English.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Believe it or not, white people have hardships too. You weren't the only one who had to prove their intelligence or take a bus/train to school. I HAD TO TAKE THE BUS AND TRAIN TO SCHOOL!!! Does that make it okay for me to complain? No, because I look at it as...the bus and train are the ways I got to school.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>1st) Girl, there are so many reports released last year alone that show, even when whites are disadvantage, blacks (statistically, no generalization) have it twice as bad.</p>

<p>20% of Blacks have two parents <--------> 60% of Whites have to parents
1 in 11 Blacks will graduate from college <---------> 1 in 5 Whites will graduate from college
Avg 12th grade black boy <------- reads at the level of-------> a 9th grade white boy
Blacks are 8 times more likely to drop out of high school than whites...
...which leads to the fact that 1 in 5 of those droppout will be in jail or incarcerated by age 18!</p>

<p>Those are just minor stats compared to all decficiencies inside of black-dominate school districts.</p>

<p>2nd) Yes. This shouldn't be a battle of who has it the worst (even though that is obvious in plain bold printed number). So long as we can agree that there are big changes that needto be made across the board in Primary and Secondary Education, so may I ask, what good are you doing by picking the bone on a mild issue in Higher Education?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You claim you want to set the stage for a time when AA isn't needed. As long as its used, it will never go away, and the gaps between the rich/poor and the blacks/whites/Hispanics etc will not disappear. Minorities are screwed over by this system that is supposedly helping them because they are allowed to get through middle school without some of them knowing how to read, then are passed on to high school where they coast through doing nothing. And the smartest of that bunch who managed to escape with half and education are admitted to college based on their skin color.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Setting the new stage means handling every problem that you listed which need to be fleshed out, put in bold, stated much more bluntly than you did there, but atleat you recognize those problems. The errors and flaws are mainly between 6th and 10th grade. And the system that blacks & hispanics are screwed over by is the Public School System, get that right. If universities try to implement an outercore system like AA to assist the 1 in 11 blacks that excelled in this system set for failure...flawed as it may be, you shouldn't be critiquing and scorning them. No criticize our government that puts Education at a backseat to every other Department in the Cabinet <a href="even%20Veteran%20Affairs,%20damnit!;%20Sorry%20but%20you%20don't%20understand%20how%20much%20Bush%20***ed%20me%20off%20when%20I%20saw%20that%20budget!!!!">B</a>* If and when we handle the real issue first, colleges and businesses would never have to think of ways to subsidize/make-up for academic-->which translate to economic deficiencies, flawed as any of them may be.</p>

<p>No, when the problems in K-12 are fixed, that is the time to remove AA. Removing AA right now helps who? Not the 10% of the black communitry that it did benefit...no I here no complaints from them. Better to have 10% of our community well-educated so that they can do something about these issues, b/c the people that need to/are going to help the black community the most are blacks. In California school districts, NBAs stars like Kevin Johnson, by opening up 6 schools and buying out school districts, have done more reform than Gray Davis did himself. </p>

<p>Really the main benefactor, and the only real benefactor I see from removing AA at this point are people like yuo, non-minorities that were rejected when the odds, resources, and all the cards were on your side in the first place.</p>

<p>And Peter_Parker, why don't you PM your school and district so we can compare Oakland, D.C., or East L.A. school district that you claim your on par with. </p>

<p>If you are actually looking at Duke or Rice, then you're already above Jones High School. Give me a city and I give you a failed high school and it's demographic, b/c the same overlaps comes up in 78:100!</p>

<p>Do you seriously think that a URM will give less of an effort in school because of AA. This type of thinking is crazy. As a black male I do know it easier for me to get into a major college, but do you seriously think that I would lessen my scholastic efforts because of AA.</p>

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>I don't think that you are attacking me however, when you keep referring back to something I said it seems that you are negating the source of the information or that I am simply pulling something out of my hat where al I am doing is simply managing the fact and backing up these statements with documentation and not simply providing you with rhetoric or sweeping generalizations.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And the only reason I mentioned a double legacy student athlete was to demonstrate that even the most likely least qualified students can pass at top schools; it had nothing to do with the persons's skin color.
[/quote[</p>

<p>Maybe this is precisely it. These threads never go on to this extent when it comes to talking about legacies, develpomental admits or athletes because most of the people who fall into these catergories will most likely not be a person of color. At the crux of the abti AA argument is the belief that a person of color has taken a "spot" from a "more deserving" non-minority person. But riddle me this..</p>

<p>Whose spots? </p>

<p>It's up to the college to decide who gets a place in the freshman class, using the criteria it believes is best for the kind of institution it wants to have. </p>

<p>No one is entitled to a spot, regardless of their stats. You may not agree with their criteria, but it is not up for you to decide whose "spot" it is.</p>

<p>Granted, when it comes to applying to many of these schools there are an overwhelming number of non-urms in the applicant pool all qualified and able to do the work if given the chance, but nowhere near enough seats in the freshman class. Although 12% of the us population identifies it self as african american, an extremely small number of sudents are applying to elite schools. </p>

<p>From the JHBE article</p>

<p>The Progress of Black Student Enrollments at the Nation's Highest-Ranked Colleges and Universities </p>

<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/pdf/2005freshmensurvey.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jbhe.com/pdf/2005freshmensurvey.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Fall 2005 (class of 2009)</p>

<p>Stanford 252 blacks admitted 156 enrolled black yeild 61.9 % 9.5 % of the freshman class </p>

<p>Duke 1867 black applicants, 163 blacks enrolled 9.5 % of the admitted class</p>

<p>Princeton 116 blacks enrolled 9.4 % of the freshman class</p>

<p>harvard 221 admitted, 153 enrolled black yeild 69.2 9.3% of the freshman class</p>

<p>Yale 1134 black applicants 122 enrolled 9.2% of the admitted class</p>

<p>columbia 1390 black applicants 114 enrolled 8.5% of the admitted class</p>

<p>Gerogrtown 1092 applied 300 admitted acceptance rate 30.2% 121 enrolled, yeild 36.7% 7.9% of the freshman class</p>

<p>Dartmouth 82 enrolled 7.9% of the freshman class</p>

<p>Penn 1229 applicants, 367 admitted 29.9 acceptance rate 193 enrolled 52.6 black yeild 7.6% of the freshman class</p>

<p>Brown 1089 applied 253 admitted 23.2 black acceptance rate 97 enrolled 38.3 yeild 6.6% of the freshman class</p>

<p>JHU 943 applied 343 admitted 36.5 admit rate 75 enrolled 21.8% black yeild 6.3% of the freshman class</p>

<p>Cornell 1126 applied 410 admitted 36.4 admit rate 175 enrolled 42.7 yeild rate 5.6% of the admitted class</p>

<p>MIT 365 applied 115 admitted 31.5 admit rate 55 enrolled 47.8& yeild 5.5% of freshman class</p>

<p>WashU 1884 applied 253 admitted 13.4% acceptance rate 76 enrolled 30% yeild 5.4 % of freshman class </p>

<p>U of Chicago 424 applied 53 enrolled 4.4 % of freshman class </p>

<p>UC Berkley 1572 applied 272 admitted 18.6 % admit rate 129 enrolled 44.2 yeild 3.1% of freshman class </p>

<p>Cal tech 40 applied 1 enrolled .04% of the freshman class</p>

<p>So from a percentage perspective, African Americans are a higher chance of being admitted, but the their numbers are not increasing.</p>

<p>"idiotic reason #4: "life's not fair" or "we can't change it anyway"
These are slogans of tyrannical opressors and the subjucated, respectively. PM me if you want a minimum of 50 historical examples where these ideologies have been expressed."</p>

<p>Thats f_cking life. Not everybody is the star quarterback who gets to go home with the cheerleading captain. Some of the people on this website think its there right to go to an IVY league school because they worked hard and did the right thing, BS. L</p>

<p>Some people get a bad hand of cards, people like Peter Parker and Citygal have shown that they lack the sanity to know that life is not peaches and cream.</p>

<p>“The University of Chicago's conclusion was that the main purpose, given this data, may be simply "learning for the sake of learning." Aka, learning material not as a means to an end but simply for the process itself. And if you think about it, many things in college, especially LACs, will not directly prepare you for your career. Yet besides this conclusion the University of Chicago came up with, I feel that many people choose more selective colleges because they want to be challenged, they want to be around smarter peers, they like the "brand name" or "prestige," or they simply like many non-academic factors of the college. None of which contribute to future salary or success! And YES, a State U graduate can land just as many great jobs as an Ivy grad..”</p>

<ul>
<li><p>First, it is well documented that the University of Chicago has a “learning for the sake of learning” philosophy, thus it does not surprise me that the university publishes a study to strengthen its own philosophy.</p></li>
<li><p>There are so many factors therein that it seems ridiculous to make such a blanket statement. Can State U person get just as many jobs a graduate from an elite school? Probably…. Does this say anything about the relative payment at said jobs? Does it say anything at all about success? Nope. What about Law school, Med School, Business school, etc? I’m positive that on average a graduate of the Wharton School of Business makes more than a graduate of random State U business school. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>“Why have college admissions at all? To make sure the student can handle the work, and that the smartest or most abmitious can be put in the most challenging and beneficial environment.”</p>

<p>-Again, I will hold that people would not choose a n elite school if there were no relative social or economic benefit for doing so. It makes no sense for a person to put in not only more money but more effort and time at an elite school for no advantage in society. If what you say is true, all top students should go to cheaper, easier schools, as not only would they save a great deal of money, they would also get higher grades. If the benefits of elite schools were just some longstanding misinformed belief, people would have stopped trying to get into Harvard many a decade ago.</p>

<p>From the link that Sybbie provided, one can see that while Black students do have a higher rate of admission at most top universities, the rate is usually not more than 10 percentage points! The acceptance rate for Blacks is even LOWER than the general pool at some schools! </p>

<p>One would think that with the way people bash AA, the rates would be 70 to 80%, but they are not. The numbers don’t lie, but I’m sure people shall return with different, even more nonsensical arguments anyway....</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe this is precisely it. These threads never go on to this extent when it comes to talking about legacies, develpomental admits or athletes

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Although I'm personally not a huge fan of recruited athletes and legacies, institutions can use athletic ability as a means to accept/deny a person. I mean, look at the NBA. The certainly take people based on athletic ability. BUT YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE USING RACE. At least, the last time I checked the Constitution. Maybe I should open up a public restaurant and refuse service or jobs to Hispanics. Oh wait, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. That's why it's a different topic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's up to the college to decide who gets a place in the freshman class, using the criteria it believes is best for the kind of institution it wants to have.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Just because a business is private, it's far from meaning it can do whatever the hell it wants.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thats f_cking life. Not everybody is the star quarterback who gets to go home with the cheerleading captain.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe the cops should bust down your door, arrest you, rob you, and then execute you without trial. The crime: grand idiocy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I’m positive that on average a graduate of the Wharton School of Business makes more than a graduate of random State U business school…</p>

<p>Again, I will hold that people would not choose a n elite school if there were no relative social or economic benefit for doing so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you're wrong. Usually, the higher salary is a function of the very ambitious, and already highly intelligent students that get into a school such as Penn. Yet there are also ambitious, intelligent students who decide to go to State U (it's cheaper, or maybe its closer, offers more programs) who will make the same salaries. There's just not as many. But its the STUDENTS INNATE ABILITIES that will make them successful or have higher salaries, not the institutions themsleves. Do a little research and you'll see that this is true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
From the link that Sybbie provided, one can see that while Black students do have a higher rate of admission at most top universities, the rate is usually not more than 10 percentage points! The acceptance rate for Blacks is even LOWER than the general pool at some schools! </p>

<p>One would think that with the way people bash AA, the rates would be 70 to 80%, but they are not. The numbers don’t lie, but I’m sure people shall return with different, even more nonsensical arguments anyway....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't care how small the injustice is, its still an injustice.</p>

<p>Btw Cre8tive1, nice research on me, but I'm already in college.</p>

<p>peter parker, just curious, why did you consider rice/duke over state U's, and i mean this in all seriousness.</p>

<p>"Again, you're wrong. Usually, the higher salary is a function of the very ambitious, and already highly intelligent students that get into a school such as Penn."</p>

<p>-First off, I don’t know who you are to tell me I’m wrong, especially when you are using someone else’s words…. Yes I too read the studies, and know that you are not the one who came up with the whole “they were already ambitions” notion. How about you use your own arguments and not plagiarize from the internet, ok?</p>

<p>-“I don't care how small the injustice is, its still an injustice”</p>

<p>-Injustice, huh? How do you reconcile this with places such as WASHU, with Black acceptance rates that are lower than the overall pool? I guess you can't agrue against numbers. That's why you are taking the "injustice" high ground.</p>

<p>"BUT YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE USING RACE. At least, the last time I checked the Constitution."</p>

<p>-You clearly do not understand the complexities of the Constitution. </p>

<p>"Maybe I should open up a public restaurant and refuse service or jobs to Hispanics. Oh wait, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW."</p>

<p>-Show me a college that refuses to admit a person based on his or her race, then make this argument...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just because a business is private, it's far from meaning it can do whatever the hell it wants

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>It is apparent that you did not read postings # 69 and 73 so I will post them again here:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Quote:
Private schools still receive public funds...don't forget that. Federal work study, federal loans, and federal grants for packaging students. They also receive funding for programs for the state, and federal government. </p>

<p>Power to legislate to over private schools receiving public funding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This same statement came up on the law school forum but the same principles hold true at the undergrad level. The attorney who responded stated the following:</p>

<p>Let's not forget, though, that as a matter of federal Constitutional law, Equal Protection applies only to situations where the government is an actor (through the 14th amendment to the states and through the 5th amendment to the federal government), such as in state universities (as was the situation in both of the cases that you mentioned). Private actors, such as private universities, who may not be considered to be state actors (and whether or not a law school, who receives, for example, grant money for research and federal loan program assistance for its students, is a state actor is not a question that has a certain answer), are not bound by these rules, though I believe that most private law schools will look to these Supreme Court decisions as guidance in their programs.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=213527&page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=213527&page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Post 73:</p>

<p>*I'm the poster of the information that sybbie referred to from the Law School forum. Just so that everyone is clear, generally, except in some very specific circumstances, the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted, and some would say, expanded, by the courts) apply only to the government, not to private actors. Yes, that's right, for the most part, the Constitution dictates what your federal and state (and by implication, local) governments may and may not do with respect to "suspect" categories such as race, ethnicity and national origin and fundamental rights such as privacy, marriage and free speech (one exception, for example, though is the 13th Amendment, which allows private discriminatory conduct in housing to be regulated). In order to regulate private behavior, the "private" party must actually be acting in some way as a "state actor". That's why public universities, such as the University of Michigan Law School, which are clearly state actors, were the defendants in these recent affirmative action law suits. </p>

<p>The cases are all over the map as to what constitutes state action, but the Supreme Court has held that the grant of a license by the government by the government does not make a private actor into a state actor, nor does the leasing of government property or does certain school funding. As I mentioned on the law school forum, private colleges and law schools (since admission to law school was the basis for the recent affirmative action cases) would have to be proven to be state actors before these requirements would be applicable to them. That said, I believe that most private colleges and law schools will take the guidance doled out by the Supreme Court and take it into consideration in their own admissions policies. </p>

<p>I'm not a constitutional law scholar, and if there is one available, their input would be appreciated, but it is not a safe assumption that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action are applicable to or binding upon private colleges and law schools.*</p>