<p>That would not happen unless the admissions directors were racist, and since most people who work in the academic world are not racist, and most students applying to college are not racist, a college that openly thought blacks were inferior would probably not get many applications.</p>
<p>“I don't care if there is one white person and 10,000 Asians at a school. If the Asians were better than everyone else at whatever the school wanted, then they deserve to be there.”</p>
<p>But if a school wants more Black students, this is a bad thing, right? Black students are surely better at being Black students than White students are. This is the sum of your silly logic.</p>
<p>What exactly makes someone more qualified to attend a school? Where in the world do you get off deciding what is a good quality to have for gaining admission to a college? The nerve of some people....</p>
<p>My post was simplistic because I meant it to be. The answer is that simple. The fact is that when people argue for racial AA, they end up arguing for a socio-economic based AA. It basically boils down to this:</p>
<p>"Well, most black people are poor (racism?). They usually go to pretty crappy schools (racism?), in the ghetto (racism?). It's therefore not fair that they should be on the same field as white people. Most white people aren't poor (racism?). They usually go to pretty good schools, even private schools (racism?), in rich suburbs (racism?)."</p>
<p>Take RACE out of the picture and the argument becomes valid.</p>
<p>Kid A goes to a pretty crappy school. His family isn't very well off and thus he has to work 25 hours a week. He doesn't really have time for any EC because of this. Also, kid A doesn't get the chance to take SAT prep classes. His teachers weren't exactly the greatest, and he's had many distractions along the way.</p>
<p>Kid B goes to a good public school/private school. His parents are well off, so he doesn't have to work a part time job. His parents pay so he can take classes in the summer at the local university and SAT prep classes. His teachers are all superb and he has plenty of times for great ECs, many of which require spending a decent amount of money.</p>
<p>Rather than....</p>
<p>Kid A is black.</p>
<p>Kid B is white.</p>
<p>see what I mean? Looking at it on a case by case basis, colorblind, and trying to see the socio-economic factors makes sense. Judging each race and lumping them into categories doesn't.</p>
<p>"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -- MLK</p>
<p>The problem is that the Day that Dr. King dreamt about has not come yet because racism (especially against african & latin americans) is still alive and well in 2006</p>
<p>That world ain't here yet, atomicfusion. AA acknowledges that.</p>
<p>Edit: sybbie, LOL! great minds think alike :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that the Day that Dr. King dreamt about has not come yet because racism (especially against african american, latin americans mexican americans, native americans, asian americans, etc) is still alive and well in 2006.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe you forgot "caucasians".</p>
<p>And by the way, affirmative action is just another part of "racism".</p>
<p>If racism exists "especially" against "asian americans" as you said, then why do they get the shortest stick when it comes to college admissions? Shouldn't they be helped by affirmative action?</p>
<p>See what I mean? The point you made doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>Edit: Errr, well you took out the "asian americans" part now, so this post may not make as much sense now.</p>
<p>I'm tired of people quoting MLK. Number one: he wasn't the only Civil Rights era leader, and everyone does not/did not agree with his politics, and number 2: it's utterly patronizing. </p>
<p>Once again….. If a college is looking to apply AA for the purpose of helping poorer students, it does it, be that person White, Black, Latino, etc. If a school wants more women it applies AA in that manner. Affirmative Action as a social engineering program seeks to help those who are typically minorities in different sections of society become better integrated into that society. Thus, using only economic factors for AA preference would be asinine, as it would not serve the entire purpose of the program. Do you really believe that colleges do not look to help economically disadvantaged White students? Such a assertion is ridiculous at best. </p>
<p>Since there is no way to know how a private school accepts people or applies AA, short of the school making the information public, let’s note that in public school admissions it is illegal to provide quotas for race. Thus, NOBODY is admitted to a public school because of his race.</p>
<p>Also, Asians do not get the short end of anything on the macro level. I promise you that if an Asian applies to an HBCU, he will have just as much a chance, if not a better chance of being admitted as a Black person.</p>
<p>How is AA going to fix racism? HUH?</p>
<p>It's like 'oh, the black population (and other minorities that are underrepresented) are being oppressed! Let's smash and grab as much benefits as possible to some how "level the playing field" OF LIFE!!</p>
<p>Why don't white, asians, and jews START PAYING AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS RIGHT OUT OF THEIR POCKETS!!!</p>
<p>AA is absurd, and if you realize, ASIANS AND JEWS ARE THE TARGET OF RACISM AS WELL (Not to mention whites, but it's less obvious and almost considered laughable, which puts whites in even WORSE position).</p>
<p>You see, each reason given in favor of AA has a hilarious and blatant flaw. Yet AA supporters think if they can cram in enough absurd reasons, fire out a dozen excuses, and just pound in frivolous data hard enough they might just cause a big enough whirl of confusion so that the debate is closed and our senseless AA system continues.</p>
<p>AA is also designed to promote diversity, not just to make right the terribile things which happened in the past. Since hispanics and blacks make up such a small % of most colleges compared to whites and asians, some would argue that AA is valuable to increase cultural diversity on campus.</p>
<p>A college experience is usually better if you are surrounded by people with diverse minds and backgrounds.</p>
<p>“Why don't white, asians, and jews START PAYING AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS RIGHT OUT OF THEIR POCKETS!!!</p>
<p>AA is absurd, and if you realize, ASIANS AND JEWS ARE THE TARGET OF RACISM AS WELL (Not to mention whites, but it's less obvious and almost considered laughable, which puts whites in even WORSE position).</p>
<p>You see, each reason given in favor of AA has a hilarious and blatant flaw. Yet AA supporters think if they can cram in enough absurd reasons and just pound in frivolous data hard enough they might just cause a big enough whirl of confusion so that the debate is closed and our senseless AA system continues.”</p>
<p>I shall ignore your stupid comment about paying people out of their pockets, as it’s one of the silliest things I have ever heard.</p>
<p>Is that what we do? We will our arguments with absurdities? Well, those against AA ignore the complexities of the program and point to one factor: race. They refuse to see that the program is not to “level life”, but to help society become more integrated for the good of its members. </p>
<p>Do White people benefit from AA, oh no of course not, AA is only for Blacks and Hispanics. Women engineers don’t benefit either, nope. College admissions officers are stupid. They see a Black applicant and automatically admit that person, with no regard to academic talent, yep.</p>
<p>For all of you who for some reason think that White people don’t get helped economically, how do you explain financial aid programs? How do you explain schools that are 60% White having well over 60% of the student body receiving financial aid? Inherently in that statement is that White people are indeed being helped financially by the school.</p>
<p>"Do White people benefit from AA, oh no of course not"</p>
<p>Hmm. Here's one example that disputes your view:</p>
<p>"White men and women are the main beneficiaries of alternative admission standards in Washington state's higher education system. The special/alternative admission standards admits students with lower grades and standardized test scores and who do not meet the eligibility requirements for regular admissions. The systems has not established racial quotas and most of the students approved for alternative admissions are White. "
<a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:20899751/Who+benefits+from+affirmative+action%3f+(Whites+are+key+beneficiaries+of+special+admission+standards+at+Washington+State).html%5B/url%5D">http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:20899751/Who+benefits+from+affirmative+action%3f+(Whites+are+key+beneficiaries+of+special+admission+standards+at+Washington+State).html</a></p>
<p>I believe that was a bit of sarcasm actually NSM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Do White people benefit from AA, oh no of course not"</p>
<p>Hmm. Here's one example that disputes your view:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you honestly think white people benefit from racial AA??? Give me a frikken break. Maybe against Asian-Americans, but no one else.........</p>
<p>how long have blacks been enslaved in this country? for how many years have they have been held down from progress? can i ask w t f is wrong with a few laws to help those who are in the worst shape of our society. for 500 years people, 500 years of slave oppression in north and central america. is it so hard to make a law to help them? is it that much of a fu cken inconvenice?</p>
<p>
[quote]
how long have blacks been enslaved in this country? for how many years have they have been held down from progress? can i ask w t f is wrong with a few laws to help those who are in the worst shape of our society. for 500 years people, 500 years of slave oppression in north and central america. is it so hard to make a law to help them? is it that much of a fu cken inconvenice?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>RIDICULOUS.</p>
<p>“Do you honestly think white people benefit from racial AA??? Give me a frikken break. Maybe against Asian-Americans, but no one else.........”</p>
<p>-I said nothing about “racial AA”. But guess what; even if it is only against Asians, it is still a benefit. That is, of course, unless the definition of “benefit” has changed. Nevertheless, on a macro level, I would hope that White applicants do not benefit from racial AA, as they comprise large percentages of student populations at schools across the country. On a micro level, however, it is ridiculous to believe that White applicants do not benefit from racial AA programs, as, not all schools are a majority White. Show some evidence to the contrary or abandon your ludicrous argument. </p>
<p>Let it also be noted that there are many other areas of the program wherein race is not the criterion of measure, areas like gender, religion, geographic location, etc. A person doesn’t have to be Black to be a woman or to be Muslim or to live in Mississippi, now does she?</p>
<p>something jive turkey posted on another thread i found interesting</p>
<p>Quote:
An affirmative action study by Princeton sociologists in 2005 attempted to break down and compare the effects of the practice among racial and special groups. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):</p>
<p>Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50 </p>
<p>Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160</p>
<p>It's one thing to banty around pieces of an article and show it off like a favored realtive, however it is another thing to read the entire article </p>
<p>Parts of the study refered to in the post by Jive turkey is based on a previous study by Espenshade, Chung, and Walling </p>
<p>'‘Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities.’’ Social Science Quarterly 85(5):1422–46, 2004.</p>
<p>Objective. This study examines how preferences for different types of applicants exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition of admitted students. Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to link information on the admission decision for 124,374 applications to applicants' SAT scores, race, athletic ability, and legacy status, among other variables. Results. </p>
<p>**Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. ** A smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni. The athlete admission "advantage" has been growing, while the underrepresented minority advantage has declined. Conclusions. Elite colleges and universities extend preferences to many types of students, yet affirmative action-the only preference given to underrepresented minority applicants-is the one surrounded by the most controversy.</p>
<p>Findings:</p>
<p>Model 1 is estimated using only those cases that report race and SAT score. The odds ratios are roughly the same in the two models, apart from the effect of being a non-U.S. citizen. A comparison of the other models in Table 6 with Model 1 shows that each set of interaction terms is significant at the 0.001 level.*** The penalty for scoring less than 1200 on the SAT is significantly greater for African-American and Hispanic students than the penalty for white students who score less than 1200 (Model 2). Similarly, the reward (i.e., increased likelihood of admission) that is produced by scoring more than 1300 is significantly smaller for African-American and especially for Hispanic students than the reward for white students who score more than 1300. ***</p>
<p>Models 5 and 6 add athlete and legacy status, respectively, to Model 4. Being a recruited athlete significantly improves one's chances of being admitted to an elite university. The odds of acceptance for athletes are four times as large as those for nonathletes. Put differently,*** the athletic advantage is roughly comparable to having SAT scores in the 1400s instead of the 1200s. Legacy applicants also receive preferential treatment in admissions. Children or other close relatives of alumni have nearly three times the likelihood of being accepted as nonlegacies. ***The SAT effect is somewhat "steeper" when athlete status is controlled, but it changes little when legacy status is added. These results are partly explained by the fact that athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332).</p>
<p>The largest admission preferences are conferred on applicants who have SAT scores above 1400, who are African American or Hispanic, and who are athletes or legacies. </p>
<p>**The athlete advantage is weaker than the preference for African Americans, but stronger than the preference for Hispanic or legacy applicants. **The legacy preference, while substantial, is less than that shown to Hispanics. Using the estimated logistic regression coefficients, it is possible to convert the magnitude of these preferences to a common SAT metric. The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.</p>
<p>**The biggest flaw with the study overall is that it speaks to colleges would prefer to have and not what [color=black]actually happens in admissions at these schools (and there is a big difference between the 2). **[/color]</p>
<p>While I would prefer to be independently wealthy, the reality is that I am going to get up in the morning and go to work becasue I don't want to live on the street.</p>
<p>Most elite schools (the ivies, AWS) don't give athlethic scholarships. Although these schools have a "preference" toward admitting this type of student, there is nothing in the study that indicates that this actually happens. </p>
<p>An African American student who is a recruited athlete and has SAT scores over 1400 although ''preferred by elite schools " will in actuality have many options including and being more likely to to accept a full ride at a school that would give athletic/academic scholarships in a school that would definitely give them more exposure in their sport (ex: Duke/ Stanford) than to pay to attend an Ivy because they do not give either athletic or merit money.</p>
<p>Espenshade, Chung, and Walling conclude their article by stating:</p>
<p>The relative weights assigned to different student abilities are in constant motion, and our data indicate that admission officers at elite universities are placing a declining weight on belonging to an underrepresented minority student group, whereas the admission advantage accruing to athletes has been growing. By 1997, in fact, being a recruited athlete mattered more than any other type of admission preference we have examined. A subsequent article in this journal will consider the opportunity cost of admission preferences (Espenshade and Chung, forthcoming). Who are the winners and losers from current admission practices?</p>
<p>Examining preferences for recruited athletes and children of alumni in the context of admission bonuses for underrepresented minority applicants helps to situate affirmative action in a broader perspective.*** Many different student characteristics are valued by admission officers and receive extra weight in highly competitive admissions. It is all part of a process that views academically selective colleges and universities as picking and choosing from many different pools or queues in order to create a first-year class that best advances institutional values and objectives.***</p>