<p>I really disagree with that you get a leg up just because you are white. I think it would be more accurate to say you get a leg up because you are rich. I went to a school with a majority of white students for the first 3 years of high school and our roof was basically caving in, our classes were 35+ and the AP offerings were almost none; then I moved to the school with a hispanic majority and they just built a brand new huge fine arts building, they offer more APs then I could ever dream of AND the couselors give more help to students than I was ever offered at my old school.
I agree with economic AA, that at least makes sense. Just because you are a URM does not mean that you are disadvantaged. But if your parents have to work 16 hour shifts just to put food on the table, you probably are going to have more challenges than the average student.<br>
I understand that income based AA is not always fair, but it is a better system than the current one.</p>
<p>True, ice_sickle. I concur.</p>
<p>I'm a moderate on the issue. I disagree with race-based affirmative action, but I believe that socioeconomic affirmative action is a better system. A rich black kid doesn't need any help. A poor white or Asian kid does.</p>
<p>What people don't realize about income based AA is that it will never work. Many private colleges are in need to people who can pay full tuition and would not be able to offer huge amounts of aid to low income students. There is no good solution for AA as it stands, so noone will do anything to change the system. It is nice to think that income based AA would help (I am for it in theory, but cannot see it working in practice) but come on. Either way, colleges will never admit 70% White, 29% Asian and 1% other (as people would suggest from a lack of AA for minorities). Top colleges will continue to make their campuses diverse and try to attract URMs to make the campus demographically closer to the US. Think about it. Harvard does not have to admit anyone from Alaska or Wyoming, but will brag to have a students from all 50 states. Also, Harvard would never want to have 70% Boston kids, even if all the top applicants just so happend to be from Boston. I hate to be cynical, but there is no way to fix the system without ending AA in its entirety, and I as an Asian am against that solution. I believe it provides a base for URMs to get into better colleges than they normally would, and opens the doors of good colleges to more people (while it supposedy hurts me). If anyone can come up with a system that leaves noone behind, I will back you 110%. Unitl then, I think AA as it is now is here to stay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no good solution for AA as it stands, so noone will do anything to change the system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative passed a few weeks ago 52-48. The system can be changed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Either way, colleges will never admit 70% White, 29% Asian and 1% other (as people would suggest from a lack of AA for minorities).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA look nothing like that, yet neither institution (along with the rest of the UC system) uses affirmative action.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe it provides a base for URMs to get into better colleges than they normally would, and opens the doors of good colleges to more people (while it supposedy hurts me)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, this is a problem. What do you mean by get into better colleges than they normally would ? Sometimes, as a result of affirmative action, students are mismatched. Theres a slippery slope effect that begins at the top. Elite universities need to satisfy their diversity requirements. I dont think anyone on CC denies that the number of under-represented minorities with cookie-cutter stats is very small. How can these universities compensate? They lower standards, simply put. They take students that would be better matched at other universities. What about these other universities? They, too, need to satisfy their diversity requirements. They, too, lower their standards. And so forth, ad infinitum.</p>
<p>I dont see how any Asian person could support affirmative action the way it is currently practiced in the United States.</p>
<p>lol affirmative action.</p>
<p>hey guys i have an idea let's make ANOTHER affirmative action thread and argue endlessly with little or no resolution!</p>
<p>oh wait you beat me to it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley and UCLA look nothing like that, yet neither institution (along with the rest of the UC system) uses affirmative action.
[/quote]
Yep, that's true. UC Berkeley is 41.39% Asian, 31.03% white, 10.58% hispanic, 3.5% black, 0.54% Native American, and 12.9% "other." UCLA is 38.08% Asian, 33.57% white, 15.27% hispanic, 3.22% black, 0.45% Native American, and 9.41% "other." :rolleyes:</p>
<p>"I dont see how any Asian person could support affirmative action the way it is currently practiced in the United States."</p>
<p>I think that's the key: the way it is currently practiced.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone on here is claiming that AA is perfect, far from it, but that doesn't mean it is completely unecessary or uncalled for either....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yep, that's true. UC Berkeley is 41.39% Asian, 31.03% white, 10.58% hispanic, 3.5% black, 0.54% Native American, and 12.9% "other." UCLA is 38.08% Asian, 33.57% white, 15.27% hispanic, 3.22% black, 0.45% Native American, and 9.41% "other."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never understood why there is a double standard applied against Asians in the name of "diversity."</p>
<p>Somehow, the presence of Blacks and Hispanics confers a diverse campus, but the presence of Asians robs the campus of all diversity.</p>
<p>Once again, only a self-touted supporter of "diversity" would claim that a campus where every tenth student is Hispanic is not diverse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, only a self-touted supporter of "diversity" would claim that a campus where every tenth student is Hispanic is not diverse.
[/quote]
Perhaps, until one realizes that hispanics compose 35.7% of California's population. Considering that UCs cater almost entirely to California residents, the mix isn't surprising. The real question is whether colleges elsewhere could achieve a similar mix without affirmative action.</p>
<p>"It hurts minorities because they have to live with people assuming that they got in to college because of their minority status, and that they would have gotten rejected based on merit alone. What about the minorities who do work hard and matriculate at colleges that they would have gotten into, regardless of race? They are still seen as people who got a boost, which isn't fair at all."</p>
<p>I don't give a damn if another person thinks that I got into my respective college because I am black, do you seriously think anyone else cares.</p>
<p>"The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative passed a few weeks ago 52-48. The system can be changed."</p>
<p>That does not mean that it is the best solution. Also, if you look at the Michigan threads on CC, you see that a handfull of kids got schoarships to UMich the day before election day because they were either URMs or from under represented states. The law just made UMich send out scholarships before it usually does.</p>
<p>And why can't I support AA just becasue I am Asain? I believe in giving people a leg up when they are not as advantaged as I am. I may be nieve on the issue, where I think race only plays a facor in admissions, and not a deciding role. People seeem to think colleges will slash standards to accpt URMs, and I doubt that is the case. They may have slightly lower standards, but an Ivy would not take a 3.0 1800 just to have anntoher Hispanic. Michigan and Cal may, but the he may also be a top football player.
The main reason I am for AA is becasue so many Asians complain that their spots are taken by URMs and that they would have gotten in if URMs were not given such a big boost. Unless you are one of the top people on the weight list, I doubt a URM took your spot. Asians need to deal with the fact that Harvard did not reject them for their race, but because they did not stand out enough. Too much whining. Too much complaining that AA keeps Asians out of college. Ivys are all over 10% Asian, and Asians make up less than 10% of the US population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe in giving people a leg up when they are not as advantaged as I am.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Helping people who are not as advantaged is fine. My problem is when race becomes a factor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People seeem to think colleges will slash standards to accpt URMs, and I doubt that is the case. They may have slightly lower standards, but an Ivy would not take a 3.0 1800 just to have anntoher Hispanic. Michigan and Cal may, but the he may also be a top football player.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>* Elite colleges admit students who typically average 1200 or higher on their composite SAT scores, 600 apiece on the tests verbal and quantitative sections. As Sowell shows, fewer than 4,000 black, American Indian, Mexican American and Puerto Rican students nationwide in 1985 scored over 600 on the quantitative portion of the SAT, and fewer than 2,000 did so on the verbal portion. In other words, there are fewer minority students scoring high enough to be admitted in the elite schools than the schools actually are admitting.*</p>
<p>
[quote]
The main reason I am for AA is becasue so many Asians complain that their spots are taken by URMs and that they would have gotten in if URMs were not given such a big boost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, some Asians do make such complaints.</p>
<p>My complaint is more general. Why should race be a factor at all? There is not a single reason for it to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ivys are all over 10% Asian, and Asians make up less than 10% of the US population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? Should there be some quota that is based on American demographics? Whatever happened to the ideal of a meritocracy?</p>
<p>Oh, thats right. Itll "never work" and its "biased" toward rich whites, because they can pay for everything.</p>
<p>"Elite colleges admit students who typically average 1200 or higher on their composite SAT scores, 600 apiece on the tests verbal and quantitative sections. As Sowell shows, fewer than 4,000 black, American Indian, Mexican American and Puerto Rican students nationwide in 1985 scored over 600 on the quantitative portion of the SAT, and fewer than 2,000 did so on the verbal portion. In other words, there are fewer minority students scoring high enough to be admitted in the elite schools than the schools actually are admitting."</p>
<p>Mhmm, that's because oftentimes, URMs are stuck in substandard schools, cannot afford to take the expensive SAT prep courses that many of us take so for granted, etc. I mean come on, if these people are stuck in ***** schools that don't care about them or their futures, then how can they be expected to do comparitively well on the SATs? And yes, it can be argued that the AA system we currently have benefits the privileged or middle class URMs more than it does the inner city URMs, but that is just a flaw in the system. No one here is saying AA is perfect. There are definite changes that need to be made to improve it. Yet, that doesn't mean that the concept off AA in itself is wrong and that it should be eradicated completely. Ideally, we could have race-blind admissions and get in solely on our merits. That is what I myself used to believe. Then I opened my eyes to the reality of the many URMs who are just...stuck, and completely changed my mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet, that doesn't mean that the concept off AA in itself is wrong and that it should be eradicated completely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree in part. I have zero issues with the original definition of affirmative action, that is, the way JFK defined it, as follows:</p>
<p> take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, **without regard to race, creed, color or national origin.'</p>
<p>Once again, I have absolutely no problem with such a definition. Race, creed, color, and national origin shouldnt be factors, period.</p>
<p>I have problems when people push for race as a factor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ideally, we could have race-blind admissions and get in solely on our merits. That is what I myself used to believe. Then I opened my eyes to the reality of the many URMs who are just...stuck, and completely changed my mind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can your argument be extended to anyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of his race?</p>
<p>If so, then why not income-based affirmative action? That way, it doesnt matter what race one is. If one is disadvantaged, thats all that is considered. If most disadvantaged persons happen to be of a certain race, thats what happened. Such a policy would not benefit wealthy minorities, a byproduct of the current policy.</p>
<p>Fabrizio, your arguments make perfect sense. I just worry that such a thing would cause people who make decent money to try and hide it or do more work off the books. That being said, the same sort of thing can and does go for AA as it is practiced today, where people are like 1/5 URM and try to pass off as identifying with that race. So, either way there are tremendous flaws. I think that it does have to be considered that most URMs have been historically disadvantaged in the U.S., and that their collective position today would not be as bad if they had not been treated as second-class citizens in the past. So, yes, we are all paying for the mistakes of our ancestors. But I think it is something we need to find a way to deal with... This seems like a situation where no one wins unless we get to the root of the problem: the education system itself.</p>
<p>i think that affirmative action takes action at the wrong stage in the education process. there needs to be reform from the bottom up. once that occurs only then can we accurately assess the situation. also, affirmative action promotes stereotypes - as the OP stated. do all blacks go to crappy schools? no, b/c i met a black guy who's at harvard and he went to this rich preppy school in my area. thus proving the "economic AA" people. i also hate the whole jew/asians stereotype. even though i am jewish, colelges do not have the right to assume that i go to a high power school filled with rich kids. true, my kids at my school are generally middle to upper middle class, however our offereings MUCH MUCH less than those college prep/jewish private schools on the east and west coast (e.g. maimonides, yula, haftr, etc). but i will be evaluated on the same basis as those kids because I am Jewish. is that fair? race should totally not be a factor in SCHOOL admissions.</p>
<p>Instead of affirmative action there should be an imrovement in inadequate educational systems and an initiative to encoourage these disadvantaged kids to get a college degree and not drop out of high school. A college degree wil help level out the playing filed much more - whether a degree from Harvard or a degree from state university.</p>
<p>Am I making any sense?</p>
<p>lacrimedellaluna,</p>
<p>Since people respond to incentives, it is highly possible that some would employ illegal means to artificially reduce their income. Doing so, however, is far more difficult than claiming to be of a certain ethnicity, as you have mentioned.</p>
<p>Indeed, the root of the problem is the educational system. The way affirmative action is practiced today in the United States attempts to treat the effect and not the cause.</p>
<p>I once read of an idea that attempts to address with the cause of disparities in public education. I emphasize that this is not my idea.</p>
<p>Lets call the total value of resources allocated to all public K-12 schools as X. Lets call the total number of public K-12 students as Y. The resulting value X/Y gives a value of money per student. Assign the X/Y values proportionally for schools (ie. a school with 50 students receives 50X/Y, a school with 5,000 students receives 5,000X/Y). How could anyone claim that such a system, albeit more socialist than were accustomed to, is unfair? Every student "receives" the same funding!</p>
<p>Hmm, I think that's an excellent idea =) If such a system were put in place, and worked, the problem would definitely be largely ameliorated.</p>
<p>it is a nice idea in theory.but some students definietely need more money than others for certain accomodations (i.e. learning disabilities, etc), while others - welathier students - need less.</p>