<p>I've always been a staunch liberal, slandering Republicans and fighting for the minorities' rights. I'm by no means a racist. However, my approval of affirmative action has completely vanished as I worked on my college applications in the last few months. I'm sure there has been a lot of discussions on affirmative action on CC, but I must vent. AA is like saying Hispanics and African Americans can't succeed without the help of others, without the extra boost. It's branding them as dependent, weak ones. </p>
<p>When I visited my first-choice school, Northwestern, I made friends on the tour, one of whom is Hispanic. The only thing he's got going for him is that he's top 10% at a really ghetto high school. He got like 10 points lower than me on the ACT and has no special EC's whatsoever. I was soo angry when he had the audacity to tell me that my top-choice college is his safety school. And the sad thing is he's probably right. WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Now when I meet a minority (other than Asians) who goes to a top college, I can't help but wonder if they got in because of affirmative action.</p>
<p>According to the information you supplied, the most he could have is about a 26 ACT. With that, only top 10% rather than first or second in the entire class, and no ecs, he's dreaming thinking Northwestern is a safety, even if he is hispanic. He must be shooting for HYPS to think Northwestern is a safety, and I don't think the HYPS adcoms drop the standards that much. Methinks that your friend is going to end up going to a state U, if he applied to one, and possibly no school at all.</p>
<p>I agree with you that affirmative action is offensive to both the majority and the minorities, and I am a liberal myself. But, it's unfortunately true that a lot of the time minorities come from poor backgrounds. Few of them have the opportunities that affluent (and often white) people have. It makes sense to cut people a break in that case. What really bothers me is when minorities who have ALL the opportunities and go to top prep schools get some slack.</p>
<p>"The only thing he's got going for him is that he's top 10% at a really ghetto high school. He got like 10 points lower than me on the ACT and has no special EC's whatsoever. "</p>
<p>So? First, you have no clue whether he'll be accepted. There's a real lack of logic in your deciding to become Republican based on this incident.</p>
<p>Second -- It's clear that you have no idea about the disadvantages that poor people face, particularly when they also go to bad schools. His school probably lacks APs, lacks decent guidance counselors and certified teachers. Some research has shown that inner city schools have an overabundance of uncertified teachers and teachers who are teaching courses in fields in which they lack certification.</p>
<p>As for ECs -- his school probably lacks ECs, and he probably lacks things like the transportation to participate in ECs. He may have to go home after school to look after siblings. He also may be working a job (something that he may not have mentioned to you).</p>
<p>As for his ACt score, I highly doubt that he had tutors, prep courses, advice from GCs or highly educated parents -- the kinds of things that probably enrich your life, and boost your score. He probably also lacked the kind of basic college prep information from peers that people routinely get who attend schools in which a high proportion of students go to 4-year colleges.</p>
<p>You were a phoney liberal. The minute you perceive something will effect you, you drop your fake liberal views. "Not in my backyard" has always unveiled people with no real ideals.</p>
<p>I agree with lola-cho. Maybe the kid was just arrogantly overestimating himself. And it's true that minorities very often don't have the resources that upper-middle class white kids do--SAT prep courses, better schools, economic circumstances, stuff like that. I have minority friends who have overcome things like this. My one friend grew up here because her parents are grad students from China, and they can't get citizenship, so she is forced to apply as an international student=almost no $$ available, making college totally impossible (if it hadn't been for a amazing scholarship she found called Questbridge.) Anyway..others have the same privileges and resources as we do, and in that case I think they should get less of an advantage. Anyway, my point is that affirmative action--although it can certainly be unfair in specific instances--is a good thing over the long term, because many minorities are disadvantaged and that disadvantage needs to be corrected for.</p>
<p>Where were you when colleges and universities actively discriminated against African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Asians and others who didn't "fit in"? </p>
<p>In most cases, and especially in the top-tier schools that you've mentioned, affirmative action merely gives deserving URMs the access that they were denied for so long. If you visit these schools, and talk to these students, you'll see just how deserving to be there that they all are.</p>
<p>And when you consider the obstacles that they had to overcome, only some of which were mentioned by Northstarmom, they deserve only more credit, not less.</p>
<p>I think he was joking about the turning into a Republican bit.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, what you're advocating is giving opportunities to the poor, which makes perfect sense. What makes no sense is pulling down the standards for the affluent minorities who have had just as many opportunities as their rich white peers just because of their ethnicity.</p>
<p>In this particular case, the guy sounds arrogant, and he doesn't sound as if he has done everything he could with his background. Getting decent standardized test scores is possible without prep courses, tutors, and knowledgeable parents, and if you think you have what it takes to succeed at a top school, it should be expected. Northwestern shouldn't be anyone's safety school, especially not this person's.</p>
<p>eleven...
and the basis for your meritocracy would be what, exactly? grades? test scores? class rank? athletic prowess? musical talent? dramatic talent? leadership ability? mathematical ability? prizes won? ability to pay? extracurricular accomplishment? community service? writing talent? all of the above?</p>
<p>"i think it sucks.. it should just be base on merit."</p>
<p>Of course afterall if it were not for affirmitive action all decisions would be based on merit...... Does this merit apply to people whose parents happened to go to the school? What about the children of celebrities or large donars? What about people with under par scores but happened to be good at throwing a football? What about for kids who can afford to pay the full tuition at a non needblind school? Need I go on....</p>
<p>College admissions is not and will not be a complete meritocracy. Also standardized test scores are NOT the ultimate indisputable measure of intelligence that some make them out to be, I know many intelligent people at the scohol I attend (both white and minorities) who had less than perfect SAT scores.</p>
<p>Anyway I have heard good arguements for and against affirmitive action.. though the original posters anecdotal story of some arrogant kid who is not even necessarily going to get into the school he brags about hardly qualifies as an arguement at all.</p>
<p>edit: oh and I agree with NYC dad that merit is a very vague term. Often when people argue for admission to be based on merit they choose things for merit that they excel at. The fact is there is no set definition of merit that colleges can use to pick people.</p>
<p>YESSSSS. Come to the dark side! Muahahahaha. Become an evil Republican like me, and learn of the atrocities of basing decisions on MERIT. Muahahahahahahahaha. </p>
<p>"In this particular case, the guy sounds arrogant, and he doesn't sound as if he has done everything he could with his background. Getting decent standardized test scores is possible without prep courses, tutors, and knowledgeable parents, and if you think you have what it takes to succeed at a top school, it should be expected."</p>
<p>Clearly, you have no clue what life is like for the students in substandard schools.</p>
<p>I remember mentoring a girl who had gotten a 14 on the ACT. I told her to study and retake it. Her GC told her not to bother. Indeed, her GC congratulated her because the girl had scored much higher than the school's average -- a 12 ACT score.</p>
<p>The girl was first generation college, from a very poor background and neighborhood and thought that she should believe her GC. She was a star student in her h.s., which had to my knowledge no AP options.</p>
<p>i understand the point of AA but I believe colleges are poorly conducting it. What about a rich URM? Does he deserve to be given this advantage? What about a poor asian or white kid. Should he be denied the admission he deserves because of the color of his skin? The AA system is based on the wrong principles. It should be based on finances, not race.</p>
<p>i understand the point of AA but I believe colleges are poorly conducting it. What about a rich URM? Does he deserve to be given this advantage? What about a poor asian or white kid. Should he be denied the admission he deserves because of the color of his skin? I know plenty of dirt poor asian kids in less than ideal schools who are incredibly hard working and successful. </p>
<p>You want to see disadvantaged kids? Go to India or China where kids whose families earn $500 a year are smarter than most valedictorians in US schools. The AA system is based on the wrong principles. It should be based on finances, not race.</p>
<p>"It should be based on finances, not race."</p>
<p>gee...and all this time, I thought that's what financial aid was for.</p>
<p>affirmative action was developed to address the FACT that certain groups were being discriminated against. And, as it turns out, these groups were racial, not financial. It remains the case, today, even with affirmative action, that certain groups are still under represented. When that is no longer the case, affirmative action will, in all liklihood, disappear along with the problem that it helped eliminate.</p>
<p>Ok...I agree too that college admissions should be based solely on finance because you can sure imagine that for Colin Powell and Jennifer Lopez's kids, Harvard is an extreme safety school. Think about priveleged African Americans and Latinas who are upper class. In comparing identical profiles, would you give admission to the wealthy African american whose parents are both doctors or the Caucasion living in a trailer home with a single parent? Financial struggle is now. Affirmative action is based on past racial tensions, history, and representation of how many people from your race get an admission. Think about the emotion of that trailer student receiving constant rejections letter because he ultimately did not have this such thing as a "hook" going for him, while the African American, because he is African-American, was inherited a "hook" because of who he is. </p>
<p>Thus, the sympathy should be solely given on terms of financial constraints.</p>
<p>"gee...and all this time, I thought that's what financial aid was for.</p>
<p>affirmative action was developed to address the FACT that certain groups were being discriminated against. And, as it turns out, these groups were racial, not financial. It remains the case, today, even with affirmative action, that certain groups are still under represented. When that is no longer the case, affirmative action will, in all liklihood, disappear along with the problem that it helped eliminate."</p>
<p>It is completely wrong that certain racial groups have been discriminated in the past and currently. However, I don't believe that assigning quotas (i.e. Affirmative Action) is the correct way of solving the problem. It seems that colleges are accepting certain underqualified URMs because they want to look good and not because those students deserved to be accepted. There are many poor URMs and its okay to be lenient with those students, but what about rich URMs? Why should they be given advantages? </p>
<p>Just last year at my school, there was an African American student who was accepted to Harvard, Yale, and MIT. He had 1480 sats, decent gpa, and decent ecs. He was from a middle class family fully capable of supporting themselves. An Asian Indian student in his class who had a 1590 sat, number 2 in the class, and decent ecs was rejected from Harvard and Columbia (he was not even waitlisted). </p>
<p>Is it the poor asian or white student's fault that these URM groups have been discriminated against? I think we should prosecute the real criminals, not innocent students. And to address your concern about discrimination, I believe that there should be some type of a watchdog organization monitoring the college admissions process.</p>
<p>I didn't spend any time in a school with an average ACT score of 12, but I did spend two years in a high school with an average score of 16. If you don't have the initiative or talent to accomplish things yourself, you don't deserve to go to a top school.</p>
<p>Defenders of race-based affirmative action keep pointing to past discrimination - which was very real - as a justification for the current policy. According to this argument, we should use AA as a tool to correct for the legacy of past injustice.</p>
<p>But what is the legacy of this injustice? Isn't it primarily economic? In what way is a minority student hurt because his parents weren't allowed to attend college or get decent jobs? Most likely, this student has been hurt because he has grown up without the economic advantages of his peers, attending lower-quality schools in a family that struggles to support itself. </p>
<p>I'm afraid that the lasting effects of discrimination are very real - but at the same time, they are essentially economic in nature. Why shouldn't they be addressed on those grounds?</p>
<p>By the way, I hope that the OP's reference to "turning into a Republican" is a joke. I too disagree with affirmation action as it is currently implemented - but when placed next to carnage in Iraq, mounting fiscal crisis, and rampant corruption and incompetence, our quibbles about college admissions are extremely insignificant.</p>