<p>I fully believe in the benefits of having diversity and I fully believe in AA (for people who've had to overcome true diversity, not on the basis of their race). In assuming that people are diverse simply because of their skin color, aren't we buying into outdated creeds like orientalism that assumes difference based on race? For the longest time, Asians were considered so different from whites that they were considered "unassimilable" into American society. At the core of white supremecy is the belief of difference on the basis of race. That's how people like the KKK were able to justify their lynchings of blacks or their discrimination against Asians. Affirmative action simply perpetuates that belief.</p>
<p>First of all history has everything to do with AA, so I'll address if it I want to. And I could care less if you don't want to talk about my grandparents, and no they weren't moved to a camp but if you want to take it there, "difficult doesn't even begin to describe the life of those before me" and no my grandmother couldn't go swimming at a lot of places, not even on the 4TH day.</p>
<p>"I hate the fact how if I get lower than 760 math, i'll be a stupid asian.
Is it my fault that I work hard, but so do many others in my race?
Is it fair to be judged on a different level just because of my skin color?"</p>
<p>Well, it's no ones fault Asians have such a high standard when it comes to education. You'll go on to succeed in life anyway. Do you think minorities really have that many opportunities to excel in life?</p>
<p>fiveminutesaday
I guess u missed point, Asians used to be regarded more lowly than blacks and hispanic, we were only allowed into swimming pools after all other races have used it. </p>
<p>newpswahine
I admit not everyone has the opportunities, I even have relatives back home that's living on ~400 US a year. But then are you saying that AA is to create opportunities for minorities eventhough they are less qualified? (This is not a rhetorical question but a real question)</p>
<p>oh sorry chezo...got confused by your post, but i still stand by what i said</p>
<p>"Do you think minorities really have that many opportunities to excel in life?"</p>
<p>Yes. I believe it with all my heart.</p>
<p>My grandfather was born in sicily and immigrated here as a child. Italian was spoken in his home. When he grew up he refused to teach his children (my father and aunts and uncle) how to speak Italian because he didn't want them discriminated against because of it. My dad attended Brandeis for undergrad and Wharton for graduate school and went on to a successful career as an executive. One generation away from someone who feared active discrimination after stepping off the boat. So no, I don't buy this mentality that minorities are the perpetually downtrodden and cannot succeed no matter what they do. I got rejected from my top 9 choices for college, and I am blaming no one but myself for not working as hard as I could have. I expect nothing less from any other student, including minorities.</p>
<p>hey I like that story FlaviusAetius. My dad was the first one in our family to go to univeristy and it was at a third tier petroleum school. In the late 80s he left for Australia with US$50 and a plane ticket. He did further studying there while picking carrots. He worked his way up and we can now pay for my education without any financial aid. So I believe minorities can excel too, but I don't want to generalize. (P.S. From what i have heard from him, Australians hate outsiders.)</p>
<p>chezo...how do you feel about legacies getting a boost? just curious</p>
<p>I don't support legacies either. Students should be judged on what they have accomplished not what their parents have accomplished. Universities do things like need-blind admission, "non-discrimination policies" and such to make sure "everyone has the equal opportunity", then they have legacies. Just doesn't make sense to me, perhaps they believe in genetics :D. </p>
<p>Just my $0.02</p>
<p>What about other forms of diversity? AA aside, colleges let in people for all kinds of non-merit based reasons. I've never seen people gathering in large numbers to complain about people who got in because they were from an underrepresented state/area.</p>
<p>From what I understand, people can get boosts from all sorts of things. Playing a certain instrument, intending to major in a certain subject, being able to, I dunno, fly or something. A girl from my school got into MIT a few years back with a SAT in the mid-1300s. A white, fairly affluent girl. If I had to hazard a guess as to why she may have gotten in, I would say she got a tip from being from the middle of freakin' nowhere, rather than a metropolitan area in the Northeast.</p>
<p>If college admissions were based purely on complete and total meritocracy, the people at the top schools would basically be exactly the same. I guess that wouldn't really be the most horrible thing in the world, but I don't think the colleges in question want that very much.</p>
<p>Hey but if a girl can sing, dance, or fly or something, she worked hard for it, she dedicated time and effort. And that would still be pretty diverse. I won't mind going to a school with a girl who can fly, I'll make her join long jump.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't support legacies either. Students should be judged on what they have accomplished not what their parents have accomplished.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wouldn't you agree that legacies are a good indicator of the students' success? I posted an hour ago saying that the Air Force Academy is accurate in deciding that, as an alumn's son, I am more likely to succeed in the academy. This is based on the fact that I would, by definition be raised in a military home with high enough standards by my parents that got one into USAFA.</p>
<p>Same goes for most other schools I would think. It is in the school's best interest to judge on relevant things, because it can help indicate the student's performance in college. Legacy tells a selective and prestigous college that the son was raised under someone who lived up to the school's standards and is more likely to hold his/her son/daughter to those same standards versus those whose parents did not get into a selective college. Sure, its not fair to the kids whose parents didn't get into the college they want to go to. I see how it isn't fair that I wasn't born into a family where both parents went to Caltech if it would help me get in. But what are you going to do. Its not like you can change it; its life, and whatever disadvantages you may think you have will probably not be relevant 2 years into college.</p>
<p>"But what are you going to do. Its not like you can change it; its life, and whatever disadvantages you may think you have will probably not be relevant 2 years into college."</p>
<p>You could use the same argument for AA. (Which I was under the impression you were opposed to...correct me if i'm wrong)</p>
<p>Chezo: What if the girl was born able to fly? lol</p>
<p>where did your "white" friend end up going to which college?</p>
<p>flavius,</p>
<p>As for the statistic, it's been bandied around pretty frequently, but here is a reference to such a source from a poster who I trust on another forum:</p>
<p>M&B,
Over & over, you have claimed that colleges use only race as a factor in diversity. </p>
<p>This is true only in your dreams.</p>
<p>You are underinformed about the scope of diversity sought in a student body these days by college administrations. Race is by no means the only, or even the most important, aspect of that diversity.</p>
<p>However, this "straw man" allows you to argue against a non-existent premise.</p>
<p>Your rage against AA would be meaningful if it is as powerful or as determinant as you believe it is in college admissions. There are plenty of "less qualified" white people who get in because of factors other than race, btw, oh -- such as athletics, legacies, & celebrity status. Some of these have lower stats than many URMs admitted.</p>
<p>That is not to say, as I said earlier, that some underqualified OF ALL RACES manage to get into almost every college, probably. You are just putting far too much blame on AA as the grand culprit that it is not.</p>
<p>"northstarmom, what are you doing responding to posts here? obviously wisdom is not welcomed here. these bitter rejects will grasp a hold of this issue to death, because its the easiest excuse for their rejections- they refuse to look at their own merits and instead scapegoat others. theres no way you can get through their thick skulls. game over."</p>
<p>So true but that sad part is that although AA proponents wont let go of their AA scapegoat they gain more supporters in threads like these because there are alot of kids with fresh rejections looking for a scapegoat to latch on to and this is where they find one> Its no coincidence these threads pop up seasonally.Whenever a student feels insecure abracadabra and a new AA thread pops up.</p>
<p>fiveminutesaday: I am opposed to AA, for the reason that it is belittling to students of color like me and (i think) you. The long-term effect of it is not important to me because the principle itself is wrong. Legacy is different. You know it.</p>
<p>"fiveminutesaday: I am opposed to AA, for the reason that it is belittling to students of color like me and (i think) you. The long-term effect of it is not important to me because the principle itself is wrong. Legacy is different. You know it."</p>
<p>How is legacy different if youre father does not donate money.</p>
<p>I think people latch on to the legacy system for the same reason poor white people who never could afford slaves supported slavery because they always believed one day they would benefit from slavery laws despite it being fair or unfair.</p>
<p>"Legacy is different. You know it." Actually I don't, I couldn't disagree with you more. Legacy is not based on any merit whatsoever, besides being born into a family that has been to college. Please explain how this is different from AA. Oh and if you can't:</p>
<p>"Its not like you can change it; its life"</p>