Affirmative Action has gone too far

<p>M&B:
I thought you got into UMich. (?)
FWIW, Michigan is sometimes not so fondly referred to as the Affirmative Action King/Queen (whatever) of Universities. In the recent past, I've known of plenty non-URMs with fabulous records who were rejected mysteriously from Michigan, so clearly in your case you were admitted on merit, probably over some URMs not as meritorious. (I doubt that all the rejected students are Caucasian Anglos.)</p>

<p>No question, though, that admissions committees & procedures are imperfect. It's just that none of us knows the actual components going into those decisions -- save what we read on CC. And, many of the CC students don't even post all their stats -- sometimes because they sincerely forgot a score, etc., sometimes out of embarrassment or modesty. They also often do not delineate the level or type of EC accomplishment: might not seem imp. to them, for example, or they might feel that other CC students would not be interested to read EC information.</p>

<p>(However, adcoms are quite interested in the non-quantitative factors, particularly for private schools.)</p>

<p>Neither you nor I have read the admitted students' essays -- nor would we read them, if we had a chance to read them -- with the same viewpoint than an adcom member would.</p>

<p>Nor do we know what "gaps" the adcom was wanting to fill for the college -- such as a likely department/major based on the actual strengths shown in the h.s. record & the demonstrated interest in a partic. field over a number of years. Nor do we know what gender & geographical & college-e.c. participation that was also "under-represented." And maybe they already had too many leader-types in the likely admitted pool, & needed some cooperative, quiet but capable followers in the mix who demonstrated that they were nevertheless excellent team players & role models in an academic setting (or vice-versa -- not enough of the leader types).</p>

<p>And for private colleges/U's esp., we have not read their rec's. I don't care if every single applicant to a given college has the right-hand boxes all checked by their teachers (superior/best in my career). Normally, there are actual sentences & paragraphs elaborating on the student's qualities, in addition to those check marks. These qualitative evaluations are an imp. element of the comprehensive qualitative assessment by the adcom.</p>

<p>Also, what about those URMs who do not post on CC? Some of them who were accepted to fine universities may have as high, or higher stats than yourself or some other non-URMs. To deny this would be to embrace a generalization that is a stereotype.</p>

<p>However, reading all the stats posted by students on CC, as well as all the info provided by parents on the parents' forum, & follow-up concessions revealed by rejected/deferred/W-L'ed students, AND results of my D's own friends, I do see certain trends. They would perhaps not be the trends you see, though.</p>

<p>Here they are:
Setting aside admitted legacies & admitted athletes, who (let's pretend, probably inaccurately) may have been admitted for that reason alone, the tipping factors in this year's acceptances <em>seem</em> to have included the following, not necessarily in this order:
(1) demonstrated interest in the institution -- shown within the app. itself, in contacts made, & in visits to, the institution.
(2) fit from the applicant's point of view -- i.e., tailoring the app. so as to showcase the appropriateness of that college for that student; self-knowledge, self-awareness shown in the app. and/or the interview, revealing that the student has thought through precisely what he or she could contribute to this college & why this college should want him or her.
(3) personal qualities, from 2 angles. One angle would be what was mentioned above -- the inclusion of a variety of personality "types," if you will, in the freshman class. The second angle would be Attitude vs. non-Attitude. Cc'ers and D's friends who admitted that they failed to mask this "problem" on an appl. and/or in an interview, were often not accepted to those colleges. I can think of one exception to this -- for a college that seems to want Attitude & flaunts it, but this was not the only or main factor in this person's acceptance; there were other "fit" factors operative.
(4) fabulous accomplishment in e.c's outside of sports. I know of, & saw lots of, 1500-1600's whose only e.c. was sports (even a variety of them, even leadership in them, etc.) who were rejected. The adcoms seemed to want to see significant off-campus accomplishment this yr, & beyond just "being involved" or putting in a lot of hours in the off-campus, non-h.s.-related activity. Those who had achieved fine things in the performing arts, or in writing, or in research, or in some form of initiative in the community that was unique, got the adm. committee to take notice. Accomplishments in off-site e.c.'s were often noted by hand in acceptance letters, btw. That fact in itself speaks volumes about how imp. the e.c.'s were in the ultimate evaluation of the candidate.</p>

<p>If there were "AA" factors this yr. to add to the above as "tips" or "hooks," the 2 that I see that seemed to be more imp. than race itself were immigrant status (or First Generation) and poverty unrelated to race/ethnicity.</p>

<p>And the bottom line, after all the above is taken into consideration, & even should one "prove" that all those tipping factors were present in your own case, no one from the outside could know who/what you were competing against. That competition would encase far more than who & what is posted on CC. One can get unlucky by having a profile too much like others in a partic. applicant pool; the near-clone of you who got accepted may have surpassed you in one area ever so slightly -- or more accurately, been <em>different</em> enough from you in a way that the college needs or seeks this yr. And hair's breadths are what is involved, often.</p>

<p>I do not envy the children born in 1987. They are "handicapped" both by the sheer size of their population & by the level of the accomplishments of more of them than the top colleges have room to accept.</p>

<p>Please try to take all of the above into account. Just as it is no longer only about legacies, only about "connections," only about recruited athletes, it is also not only about ethnicity or race.</p>

<p>Finally, it is easy for a student to forget or ignore that Higher Education is a business, meaning that marketing & competition are factors. To say that the Ivies & the high-level LACs compete with each other for the same candidates is to say that the Pope is Catholic. You would not believe how my D was nailed to the wall in her 3 Ivy interviews, regarding what other Ivies she was applying to. (I also received a phone call from one of those Ivies, inquiring about that; I was actually asked to rank in importance/desirability which colleges were in what position on her list.) If, for example, Harvard & P'ton are opening up their acceptances to more minorities, it is because they fear they will or might be losing them to competing Ivies. They would hardly be concerned about losing <em>un</em>qualified candidates, would they? Rather, this tells me that URMs are becoming increasingly competitive in the college admissions marketplace, on their own merits irrespective of race. (Many would say, It's about time that this would be true in significant numbers.)</p>

<p>epiphany, that is a long insightful post, but you forget that all common sense and wisdom is left outside this thread. i predict nothing but the same whiny rhetorics that are common for AA threads, followed by more excuses as to why these people felt they are kings/queens and :shock: didn't deserve their rejections (oh no!). come on you guys- blame the minorities right? the best excuse you guys have and the easiest to rant about.</p>

<p>pfm,
Well, long it was, but I nevertheless felt that some serious issues needed addressing. There's a tendency to judge (hastily) by stats: these are incomplete both individually, & for the whole pool of applicants. And the big picture this yr. seemed to be more about a qualitative than a quantitative set of decisions. But it is also natural to seek some answers in posted stats, as it is natural also to vent.</p>

<p>i wouldnt be suprised if the quantitative stats are similar this year to what they were last year. the degree of whining and pouting is what is out of control. these people will continue to do nothing but hastily judge others based on one sided statistical information people post on this board. i find it laughable when i read other posts where a poster says something along the lines of "my friend got into harvard but he has a lower gpa than me and its because hes a minority!," which the argument seems to boil down to for these whiners. its ok to vent about how hard they tried yet didnt make it, but its another thing to cry and then naively point the fingers at immigrants and think this is why they were rejected.</p>

<p>
[quote]
M&B:
I thought you got into UMich. (?)
FWIW, Michigan is sometimes not so fondly referred to as the Affirmative Action King/Queen (whatever) of Universities. In the recent past, I've known of plenty non-URMs with fabulous records who were rejected mysteriously from Michigan, so clearly in your case you were admitted on merit, probably over some URMs not as meritorious. (I doubt that all the rejected students are Caucasian Anglos.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>(also directed to the 32432^2 people who accuse me of being a bitter reject)</p>

<p>I'm finishing my sophomore year at Umich. I applied to transfer to Brown in the fall, and I haven't received my decision yet. Regardless, I have never applied to the schools I was talking about and I never will. I couldn't care less about their admissions policies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We don't read their essays ... We don't see their recs ... We don't know their EC's ... We don't know what wholes they're trying to fill

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree as a matter of common sense, but I don't think can justify the amount of AA that's going on. We like to think (re: we know) that grades, test scores, and courses are the most important thing in college admissions. Many URM's get in with levels of these attributes that would be a read over -> reject for a non-URM. </p>

<p>Qualitative things are important. If they would honestly fill a role in the university, they should be given extra consideration (but I don't think a suburban black kid has a unique experience as compared to the suburban white kid next door). Likewise, I think there should be a tip if the person has struggled out of poverty or otherwise overcome large obstacles.</p>

<p>What I don't like is using race as a proxy for all of this. They simply aren't analogous. Doing so doesn't imply that blacks ARE poor, poverty stricken, lazy, incapable of achieving on the same level etc, it explicitly states it. I hardly see how that's a recipe for equality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
i wouldnt be suprised if the quantitative stats are similar this year to what they were last year. the degree of whining and pouting is what is out of control. these people will continue to do nothing but hastily judge others based on one sided statistical information people post on this board. i find it laughable when i read other posts where a poster says something along the lines of "my friend got into harvard but he has a lower gpa than me and its because hes a minority!," which the argument seems to boil down to for these whiners. its ok to vent about how hard they tried yet didnt make it, but its another thing to cry and then naively point the fingers at immigrants and think this is why they were rejected.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>AA proponents are very good at shooting the messenger. Isn't it true that URM's get in with lower gpa's universally? Isn't it true that in all probability his friend with the lower gpa probably did get in based on his race? Pray tell: where exactly does this hypothetical arguer go astray? AA advocates want to have their cake and eat it too. They want it to be easier for people of a certain skin color to be accepted, but they never, ever want attention called to this fact. Why is that? </p>

<p>(obvious answer: because their beloved institution promotes racism and inequality and they'd sooner just call someone a racist than look at the reasons he might be complaining)</p>

<p>PS: Address the argument; demeaning or belittling the arguer is not a refutation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but hastily judge others based on one sided statistical information people post on this board

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ohh, really? How about other sources then. How about universal statistics then? I think we can agree that GPA and SAT are the keys to the gates that get you passed initial rejection. What about the fact that URM's get in much easier with lower states across the board? </p>

<p>You'd be wise not to try to argue that URM's don't have an easier go at admissions.</p>

<p>Didn't you start a thread like this before? We all know you don't like AA and think all URM's are beneath you academically so get over it. However, I dont consider you a racist nor do I think it's fair to call someone who disagrees with AA a racist. You're bitter and slightly ignorant, but probably not racist. Also, you keep saying AA perpetuates negative stereotypes, but in actuality you're the one that perpetuates steretypes by making assumptions about URMs and their academic capabilities without ever speaking to them.</p>

<p>I've argued it before, but I don't think I started a thread. I could be wrong. </p>

<p>I post what I feel like. Feel free to not read my posts. Besides, I had a specific topic when I made the original post (this year's AA at top schools). It took exactly one post for someone to start in on arguing AA, and it took exactly three before I was called a name, albeit with an assertion that had absolutely nothing to do with me (I love you too, northstarmom your posts are generally informative - I was surprised).</p>

<p>Besides, I don't think all URM's are below me! That's unfair and you know it. I do, however, hold this crazy notion that the ones who are, in fact, less qualified than me shouldn't be given the job/position/acceptance I am more qualified for. It's this thing called equality, maybe you've heard of it. </p>

<p>In other news. The BAMN thing was on campus today. I was approached by a white girl and black woman who asked me to sign a petition to stop the "Racist Uncle Tom apologist, Ward Connerly." I told them that Ward Connerly has done as much for equality as MLK. You should have seen the murderous look in their eyes ;) It was brutal, but I was laughing all the way to my next class. Turns out the black woman was a member of the orginizations national leadership!</p>

<p>Sorry M&B, but when I see a post like yours I have to respond. If you state an opinion be prepared to defend it. Also, I'm curious as to what name you were called. I can't find any. I agree with you that the opinion should be attacked, but not the person. One more thing, you weren't serious about the Ward Connerly thing were you? If so, you're more ignorant than I thought.</p>

<p>Northstarmom implied that I was a bitter reject who lacked character, and I've done NOTHING BUT defend my views (very successfully I might add)</p>

<p>...and I did so without resorting to sophomoric anecdotes or implied insults.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but in actuality you're the one that perpetuates steretypes by making assumptions about URMs and their academic capabilities without ever speaking to them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I go to UMich and I speak to URM's all the time! I would like to know how I perpetuate the stereotype. I make assumptions, all right. I assume that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites are all equal. Call me crazy.</p>

<p>...but how exactly do I further stereotypes? You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want people to be given positions based on skin color, but you never, ever want attention called to that fact. So I ask again: why is that?</p>

<p>
[quote]
you're the one that perpetuates steretypes by making assumptions about URMs and their academic capabilities without ever speaking to them

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I say they're as good and capable as everyone else. You say they aren't, yet I'm the one making assumptions and perpetuating stereotypes?</p>

<p>I say if there is a mitigating circumstance (which are often cited as the case for AA) such as poverty etc, it is fine to give them a boost. I say base it on the relevant factors. You say base it on the superficial color of skin.</p>

<p>Of course Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites are equal, at least to me. But for MANY, MANY years they were not. This was why AA was started in the first place!!! They didn't just start it out of the blue. And no matter how rosy your glasses are, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites are still not equal, and it has nothing to do with AA. If you ask most of this country's population, they won't cite AA for the reason that there is inequality.</p>

<p>"I have never applied to the schools I was talking about & I never will....I couldn't care less about their admissions policies."</p>

<p>Then why <em>are</em> you so inflamed? I'm glad you think that you know everything about every person's obstacles in life, be they urban, rural, or suburban. In fact, you don't. Looking at my D, & her manner, an outsider would believe she comes from advantage. She comes from anything but. She is also not a minority, let alone an under-represented one. I have met many such people in my life, from a variety of races. Not everyone, regardless of race, carries their challenges on their sleeves, or on the addresses of their suburban houses, if they have one of those.</p>

<p>You seem to think you are a superior debater, but you demonstrate a lack of ability, or willingness, to distinguish the specific from the general (which is exactly what college admissions is about; it could hardly be <em>more</em> specific these days, what with the talent pool the colleges have to choose from).</p>

<p>Overall, accepted students at top universities are highly meritorious in '05. There are also a number of meritorious students not accepted. Those are the realities of the size of the college-age population. The top colleges have no reason to settle for second best & they don't need to. If you think that high-profile colleges/U's are mainly on a social mission & willing to sacrifice excellence on that behalf, you are fooling yourself, i.m.o.</p>

<p>I think vicks said it best, & I think I'll leave it at that. I thought you were seeking rational answers, but I see that you prefer to argue intangibles, & that you have incomplete knowledge to form the judgments you are making.</p>

<p>I know that many college campuses are liberal in their political atmosphere. Some, however, are more "out-there" in their visible activism -- such as UMich & UCBerkeley. Sounds as if you'd be happier in a less activist environment. I don't know whether Brown qualifies in that regard. It's also an option to start an Opposition group on a campus, write an Op-Ed piece for the campus newspaper, etc. It seems to me that would be more constructive than your campus reactions as you report them, not to mention the attitudes as you express them here. (You come across as if you prefer to rant than vent. There is a difference.)</p>

<p>Many elements go into an applicant's "qualifications." Scores & grades are only 2 of many of those qualifications. Therefore, your statement about who is "more" and "less" qualified is erroneous on its face. It may make you feel better to marginalize other qualifications as beneath scores & grades, but in fact some accomplishments make scores & grades look minuscule by comparison. There are many students accomplishing great things outside of a classroom or a test room; they come from a variety of backgrounds, including majority backgrounds.</p>

<p><< They would hardly be concerned about losing <em>un</em>qualified candidates, would they? Rather, this tells me that URMs are becoming increasingly competitive in the college admissions marketplace, on their own merits irrespective of race. (Many would say, It's about time that this would be true in significant numbers.) >></p>

<p>But it isn't true, at least not if you're considering academic merits. There are less than 200 African Americans (the American bit there is somewhat significant) who score over 1500 on the SAT yearly. If you consider the SAT an insufficient benchmark and start looking at more advanced students like those taking the USAMO and the physics and computing equivalents, you will see almost zero (possibly zero depending on year) underrepresented minorities who qualify for such olympiads. This implies that, say, 245+ of the 250 best young mathematicians and scientists in a given grade do not belong to underrepresented minority groups.</p>

<p>So as a whole minorities may be closing the performance gap (I don't know if this is true) but certainly in the upper ranges of students; e.g, your Harvard applicants, the non-minority pool is significantly stronger.</p>

<p>Again, I consider myself a supporter of AA. I think that having underrepresented minorities in such institutions can help create a culture of achieveing, as pretentious as that may sound. But URM applicants to elite schools must - by virtue of the aforementioned statistics - represent the a lower academically-achieving subset of the applicant pool.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They didn't just start it out of the blue. And no matter how rosy your glasses are, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Whites are still not equal, and it has nothing to do with AA. If you ask most of this country's population, they won't cite AA for the reason that there is inequality

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Than why not cite and consider what's unequal (poverty, obstacles) and base AA on that? Why base it on skin color?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many elements go into an applicant's "qualifications." Scores & grades are only 2 of many of those qualifications

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes they are. But you forget one important thing: along with sterength of schedule they make up the top three. URM's need less of the most important credentials to go the same distance.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to think you are a superior debater

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Where did I say that?</p>

<p>
[quote]
may make you feel better to marginalize other qualifications as beneath scores & grades, but in fact some accomplishments make scores & grades look minuscule by comparison. There are many students accomplishing great things outside of a classroom or a test room; they come from a variety of backgrounds, including majority backgrounds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You still can't argue with facts. Ceteris Parabis, the URM needs less to get in. Of course EC's matter! Show me where I said they didn't. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There are many students accomplishing great things outside of a classroom or a test room

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So I ask again: why not base AA on these (relevant) accomplishments. I say boost the kid who has overcome poverty or struggled to educate himself in an urban school. Why base it on something as irrelevant as the color of skin?</p>

<p>The way I look at it, the situation with AA could be one of two things:</p>

<p>1) AA could be impacting admissions decisions a great deal, letting in minority students who are underqualified and actively keeping out "unfavored" races that are highly qualified. If this is the case, AA is obviously an egregious affront to the integrity of the universities performing it, as well as the notion of equality our country holds very dearly.</p>

<p>2) AA is <em>not</em> impacting admissions decisions a great deal, and the minority students that are let in are well deserving of their admission. If this is the case, then AA is simply a superfluous system that not only accomplishes nothing, but also is an active detriment to minority students because of the perception it creates. As long as AA exists, people will be suspicious of minority students and graduates. People will choose white doctors they know are qualified over black doctors they fear may have had an AA advantage in getting into medical school, and the same thing will happen in all sorts of professions. Colleges may be trying to generate some type of aesthetic equality, but the free market is still concerned only with results, and the vast majority of minority students who earned their way through college and graduate school will suffer because of a program that was never meant to help them anyway. </p>

<p>In either case, AA is a damaging program that has no place in higher education or the workplace. A performance gap between minority students and their white counterparts needs to be addressed at the root of the issue, making educational opportunities available to minority students from the age of five, not from the age of eighteen. If you kill the root, you kill the whole weed. Minority students who have significant educational opportunities from a young age will perform as well as their white counterparts by the time they reach the age of taking SATs and other comparitive tests.</p>

<p>"There are less than 200 African Americans (the American bit there is somewhat significant) who score over 1500 on the SAT yearly"</p>

<p>Do you have a link or source for this statistic?</p>

<p>Well I'm not going to rehash all the posts I've written on this thread but ina nutshell: because just like legacies (who you seem to have no problem with) add money, and buildings, minorities add diversity. </p>

<p>-Thanks for not holding it against me for calling you a prick a while back (:) sorry angry post)</p>

<p>I could take us way out into left field and ask why the only "diversity" that matters is the superficial color of skin. Are you prepared to give every arbitrary "diversity" the same type of consideration. Do blondes deserve AA? Do fat people deserve AA? They look different(actually, they're probably more discriminated against too come to think of it). We generally think that superficial diversity isn't as important as, say, Harvard's mission to put together the best class in the nation. We don't think there would be a relevant reason strong enough to allow a blue eyed kid into Harvard because its an under-recruited eye color. We think the "best class" ideal should come first. Some people might say, "but there are relevant differences in the case of race. namely, poverty et al." To them I respond: all I'm suggesting is why not directly address these relevant factors? If black people are all poor than giving AA to poor will still help them out, no? Why use "black" as a (very) imperfect proxy for "poor" when you don't have to? Especially when doing so furthers prejudice.</p>

<p>Why is getting a rich black kid just as good as getting a poor black kid in your diversity ideal? Why is diversity of thought non-existant on campus (among the profs)? .....but that's a different thread</p>

<p>
[quote]
In either case, AA is a damaging program that has no place in higher education or the workplace. A performance gap between minority students and their white counterparts needs to be addressed at the root of the issue, making educational opportunities available to minority students from the age of five, not from the age of eighteen. If you kill the root, you kill the whole weed. Minority students who have significant educational opportunities from a young age will perform as well as their white counterparts by the time they reach the age of taking SATs and other comparitive tests.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Read the 1986 article by the late Dr. Ogbu of Berkeley. Very interesting stuff.</p>