Affirmative Action is turning me into a Republican

Applying to College
41

<p>I notice that affrimative action really becomes a hot button issues when it concerns admissions into a handful of schools especially when you consider the fact that there are more than 3000 colleges and universities in the country.</p>

<p>I love how most of the people who wish AA would go away are some of the same people whose families have benefitted from AA. Before AA. the "elite schools did not have students who were African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, or women. what people tend to forget that AA is a tip factor when looking at 2 similiarly qualified candidates the tip would go to the underrepresented group. The term similiarly qualified does not mean equal as college admissions at eleite colleges and universities are holistic in nature, so a person is evaluated in context of their environment which is the main reason that while scores and grades are used as an objective factor, it usually ends up being hte subjective factors that determine and admit, deny or stay. </p>

<p>All of this is looked at in context of the opportunities that one has had access to. while some may nt be wealthy, if they live in a better school district where a large number of students attend 2/4 year colleges, their experience is going to be different from the student who lives in abject poverty and attends a school wher 20/30% of students graduate or attend college. This is going to be different from the student that attends and elite private h.s. where a large portion of the students are admitted in to the top 25 colleges in the country.</p>

<p>For those who wish that AA would go away, be careful for what you ask for because you just may get it. Many people beleive that AA went away that the colleges would be overwhelming white and asian. I beleive that if AA goes away colleges will be what they were before AA, rich and white because at the end of the day Unitl there is an are not running the colleges and racism is still a big problem in america.</p>

<p>If AA goes away how long do you think it will be before international students are no longer even considered in the admissions process. How long do you think students who are not citzens or permanent residents would continue to get a free education at U.S. public schools because all you have to show to register in public school is a birth certificate and an immunization record (remember some of those who are against AA are also of the mind set that america should educate its own and not educate students from other countries because hov many countries can americans go to to get a free education?).</p>

<p>people sit back and cry AA should be based on economics and don't even know (must have slept through U.S. history that day) or do not remember what state our country was in during the 1960's when AA and a few other programs came in to fruition. Aa is part of the Civil rights act of 1964 and has roots in 1954 Brown vs. the Board of ED.</p>

<p>From 1954 the concept of financial aid changed as more people were given access to education (remember before the 1960's the poor did not have access to the elite educational opportunites they have today):</p>

<p>1954
The College Scholarship Service (CSS) was founded by a cluster of 95 private colleges and universities located in the northeastern section of the country. This group developed a standard need analysis system to determine the financial need of student applicants. The system established criteria to measure college students and their families’ ability to contribute to their education based on family income and assets They developed a form to collect information from students and collected a fee from students for each college to which the information was sent.</p>

<p>The CSS need analysis system became the established method of allocating need-based aid.</p>

<p>1956
Initially need was determined using the work of Rexford Moon from a New York headquarters based on early efforts into need analysis on the work of John Munro, Director of Financial Aid at Harvard. The Harvard system of measuring need had been refined by groups of Western colleges and universities, which developed common procedures and forms for analysis. A group of eastern institutions then brought about a similar process of refinement, and by 1956 a tentative national system, developed by the higher education community for use in awarding institutional aid, was in place.</p>

<p>Regardless of motives, the establishment of a system based upon measuring the student's or his family's ability to pay for the cost of education provided the beginning of a philosophy that aid should be awarded on the basis of need. The system also provided for financial aid administrators to meet together.</p>

<p>The College Scholarship Service was the dominant group in the early training and association activities of the members of a newly emerging branch of higher education administration</p>

<p>1957
Sputnik Launched</p>

<p>In the decade after World War II, while the economy was adjusting to meet an unprecedented peacetime prosperity and the population was rapidly expanding, there was little public demand for the federal government to become involved in assisting students seeking a college education.</p>

<p>However, in 1957, an external event dramatically changed a complacent public attitude toward government involvement in aid to education. The Soviet launching of Sputnik in the fall of that year evoked an outcry from the American people, who were culturally unprepared to be second-best in anything — especially second to the Russians in outer space.</p>

<p>Congress swiftly denied any responsibility for the apparent American inferiority blaming our educational system "The real problem lay in the weakness of the American education system and would require a new dynamic and total commitment to the problems facing higher education3</p>

<p>1958
National Defense Education Act (NDEA)</p>

<p>This legislation provided aid to education in the United States at all levels, public and private, stimulated the advancement of education in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, provided aid in other areas as well, including technical education, area studies, geography, English as a second language, counseling and guidance, school libraries and librarianship, and educational media centers, provided institutions of higher education with 90% of capital funds for low-interest loans to students, gave federal support for improvement in elementary and secondary education, contained statutory prohibitions of federal direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of institutions, administration or personnel of any educational institution, and established the National Defense Student Loan Program (NDSL).</p>

<p>This student loan program offered long-term, low-interest loans to qualified students, first in the targeted fields of mathematics, science, and foreign languages, and later in all academic majors. The National Defense Student Loan Program was later renamed the National Direct Student Loan Program (NDSL). Today it is known as the Federal Perkins Loan Program.</p>

42

<p>1972
Higher Education Amendments (Reauthorization)</p>

<p>The Higher EducationAmendments responded to the disparity of funding among institutions by creating in the Basic Opportunity Grant Program (Now called Pell grants), known as the BEOG Program or "Basic Grant." This program is now known as the Federal Pell Grant Program.</p>

<p>Basic Grants were intended to serve as the "floor" or "foundation" of an undergraduate student’s financial aid package. Other financial aid, to theextent that it was available, would be added to the Basic Grant up to the limit of a student’s financial need.</p>

<p>The BEOG Program introduced the concept of portability in the federal student financial aid programs. As opposed to Campus-Based Aid, where the College makes the determination of which students will receive funding and in what amounts. By providing portability, BEOG offered students not only access to post-secondary education; but, for the first time choice among institutions.</p>

<p>Most changes to the federal student aid program result from a process called "reauthorization". Through the process of reauthorization, Congress examines the status of each program and decides whether to continue that program, and whether a continued program requires changes in structure or purpose The campus-based programs have been reauthorized every five or six years beginning in 1972.</p>

<p>The Higher Education Amendments of 1972:</p>

<p>Reauthorized the three campus-based programs; </p>

<p>Renamed the National Defense Student Loan Program as the National Direct Student Loan Program; </p>

<p>Renamed the Economic Opportunity Grant Program the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program (SEOG); </p>

<p>Proprietary (profit-making) schools became eligible to use Title IV Funds; and </p>

<p>The Educational Opportunity Grant Program would no longer function as a stand-alone program of gift aid, but instead would be linked with the Basic Grant Program. </p>

<p>1992
Higher Education Amendments</p>

<p>Mandated sole use of a single, free application for Title IV funds (Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA); </p>

<p>Mandated a single need analysis methodology, called the Federal Need Analysis; </p>

<p>Methodology (FM), and a single set of cost of attendance components; </p>

<p>Established a statutory definition of an academic year with a minimum number of hours and weeks; </p>

<p>Required pro-ration of Federal Pell Grants and Stafford Loans for undergraduate students enrolled in programs that do not meet the statutory definition of an academic year, as well as for undergraduate students enrolled in a remaining portion of an academic year; </p>

<p>Mandated development of a common FFEL application and promissory note, and a common form for processing FFEL deferments; </p>

<p>Mandated standardization in FFEL lenders and guarantor forms and procedures; </p>

<p>Required negotiated rulemaking for Part B (FFEL Program), Part G (General Provisions), and Part H (Program Integrity) of the Higher Education Act; </p>

<p>Changed the names of the loan programs. The Guaranteed Student Loan Programs had often been (and still are) referred to as the "Part B" Programs, because they are addressed in part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The 1992 HEA renamed the Part B Loans as a group to the "Federal Family Education Loan Program" or the FFEL Program. The Guaranteed Student Loan Program itself was renamed the Federal Stafford Loan Program in honor of Senator Stafford; </p>

<p>Increased annual and aggregate loan limits while PLUS loan limits were eliminated; </p>

<p>Created a separate Federal Unsubsidized Stafford Loan Program for students who did not qualify for a subsidized loan, or whose subsidized eligibility was limited to borrow additional funds; </p>

<p>Authorized a new William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Demonstration Program, designed to permit a small group of schools to offer loans similar to those under the Federal Family Education Loan Program and allowed the Department of Education to provide students loans directly through schools rather than through private lenders; </p>

<p>Changed the structure of loan limits under the Federal Perkins Loan Program; </p>

<p>Enhanced the purpose of the Federal Work-Study program by adding a community service requirement; and </p>

<p>Eliminated financial restraints on eligibility for less-than-half-time. </p>

<p>As a result of the 1992 HEA mandate for a free financial aid application and federal methodology for need analysis, there was no longer a need for the CSS financial aid application. Some institutions were philosophically opposed to the changes in need analysis adopted by Congress. For example, many opposed the decision to exclude home equity as a factor in determining ability to pay. As a result, CSS developed the Profile, a supplement to the government's free application, which many private schools use to award private funding.</p>

43

<p>I'll get off my soap box now because those that are entrenched in their views will still not realize what they are are asking for and how much it will affect other things. Everything happens in context of where we are as a country. Affirmative action is not going way as long as college want to feel that they are giving equal access to an education to all. </p>

<p>Remember this those that do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.</p>

44

<p>Actually, AA based on past discrimination or any type of compensation is destined to fail as a violation of the CRA1964. No if ands or buts about it, it was decided in Bakke and every affirmative action case since then has tried another approach. In addition to violating federal law it is simply stupid. Pure race based AA is overinclusive (it includes a good friend of mine who, to use the cliche thrown around here, did take SAT prep tests and live in a house with an olympic size swimming pool and two tennis courts) and pure race-based AA is underinclusive (it doesn't include the poor white kid from the majority black city - Gary, Detroit, et al - that's coming from the exact same situation).</p>

<p>"Diversity" is the only argument you can win with on a legal level. As to how much diversity is really needed - that is still under debate (I don't think nearly as many people beleive in it as beleive in compensation arguments).</p>

<p>The saddest sight I saw in my days at the University of Michigan was a black kid crying in the library. I had met him in intramural basketball and he didn't seem to be a bad person. We got to talking and he told me his entire story. The UofM had payed his school to bus in the top 25% of their high school class (which was entirely black) in to fill out applications. All but one was ultimately accepted. They had lured him in with promises that he could become a Doctor. He was crying in the library because he realized he could not. He had failed his lab report (the all white lab group he was working with had given him the assignment of simply presenting their work before the class when they realized he didn't know algebra) - he still managed to muck things up for the group by stumbling over the terms and words that they had scripted for him. The group had also gone to the professor to ask that they all be assigned to different groups as well.</p>

<p>I ask you, does this forster racial togetherness? I don't know any of his lab partners, but I would be frustrated and probably would have done the same thing. It's not their fault he couldn't perform. They probably didn't need to be jerks about it and tell him as a group to his face (and bring the poor URM to tears), but can anyone argue with their other course of action? Was diversity helping out in that chem lab? Is diversity helping out in an economics class in which half the URM's can't do algebra, let alone the prerequisite calculus (a personal experience of mine)? Are URM's helped by belittiling the truly gifted ones' abilities (think of "the dumb jock" stereotype- we all are inclined to think of athletes as academically below others on campus because of their much easier route to acceptance - it seems obvious that this would apply to other types of "special" admits as well - even if it is taboo to speak of)? Are those a little further behind really helped by flunking them out of top universities with debt they are hardly able to afford (UM ranks #1 in minority dropout rate in USNWR's t50, followed in perfect order by the 4 schools that practice the next greatest amount of affirmative action) </p>

<p>With AA everyone is played as a pawn in a social agenda that has outlived its use.</p>

<p>Fix public schools, grant some benefits to those who came from significant hardship - but only after you make damn well sure they can do passing work. Divisions by skin color are, however, insidious, wrong, evil, and immoral. All of them.</p>

45

<p>My problem is with public colleges giving scholarships to people of a certain race. I never see a scholarship for a white male or female who comes from a poor background or parents who never went to college. My son has no options for any scholarships at Wisconsin where he got accepted for an out of state white male. But if he was of a different background there would be scholarships for him. Definitely not fair.</p>

46

<p>"what people tend to forget that AA is a tip factor when looking at 2 similiarly qualified candidates the tip would go to the underrepresented group."</p>

<p>I don't think so. I know things besides standardized test scores and GPA play a major role in admissions, but I've heard of way too many cases of minority students with sub-par credentials and no unique hook (except for being black, red, etc.) being accepted to schools which gave the boot to extremely qualified non-minority students.</p>

<p>"I never see a scholarship for a white male or female who comes from a poor background or parents who never went to college."</p>

<p>Don't some colleges have special opportunities for those who are first generation college students?</p>

47

<p>After reading all these posts I feel that I must comment. There seems to be so much outrage against AA when in reality legacy/athlete is a much bigger hook. It is interesting that AA, which is based on race, seems so much more offensive to some than the legacy/athlete hook.</p>

<p>The common misperception is that students of color are taking the seat of a more deserving candidate. That is not always true. My son is an A student and scored 1460 on the SAT, but wherever he goes people will assume he will got in because he is Hispanic.</p>

<p>Yes, some middle/upper class URMs may benefit from an AA tip, but I think that schools ask about the parent's background for a reason. I think schools will take a URM from a disadvantaged background over a URM with more advantages. </p>

<p>Also, my belief is that AA is not neccessarily done to only benefit the URM student, it is a policy to help the student body as a whole. I believe that colleges are aware that to have a well rounded education, students should be exposed to others from different backgrounds. </p>

<p>My son has an Irish surname and is extremely light skinned. We live in a mostly Caucasian area. It is amazing the type of racial comments made in my son's presence by other students that are unaware of his ethnicity. Clearly these students are buying into stereotypes perpetuated by the media or by others. They have never known people of color themselves. That is where I feel AA comes in. For some students college may be their first opportunity to interact with people of different backgrounds.This a way to g et an education that they are not going to get in a book.</p>

48

<p>Patently false.</p>

<p>In U of Michigan's uncovered documents (now defunct but the new system is engineered to quote "produce the same results")</p>

<p>Being black = 20 points.
Being an athlete = 20 points
Being legacy = 4 points
Having a sibling that attended the school = 2 points
(for reference) having a perfect SAT score = 12 points</p>

<p>Simply outrageous. Berkeley, Wisconsin, and UNC all were found to have practices roughly similar (Berkeley's now completely defunct of course). It's harder to get policies from privat schools because you can't FOI them, but it's safe to assume it's roughly the same.</p>

<p>Love it or hate it - racial AA isn't a small tipping point and the matter isn't up for debate. To say otherwise is to stick your head in the sand. URM's are admitted, with no unique "hook" with stat's that would have gotten an Asian's application laughed all the way to the trash</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
That is where I feel AA comes in. For some students college may be their first opportunity to interact with people of different backgrounds

[/quote]
</p>

<p>..and ohh what a grand first impression these URM's make in an economics class when they can't do calculus or in a chemistry class when they can't do algebra.</p>

<p>Read my post.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The common misperception is that students of color are taking the seat of a more deserving candidate. That is not always true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not always but, unfortunately for the most part. It should never be true. "Deserving" is such an ambigious term, but it is hardly difficult to see that there are more qualified applicants who are denied (when "social justice" et al aren't factors).</p>

<p>I'll never become a republican (at least I hope!), but I can never accept any divisions by race - especially institutional divisions. I will never forget my black friend crying in the library because his white lab group had unfortunately, but nessessarily called him out on his inability to do algebra.</p>

<p>None of them should have been put in that position.</p>

50

<p>Are you aware of the legacy statistics for HYP or Georgetown? I am since I recently attended a college fair where this question was addressed by the representative. 40% of legacy applicants are accepted. It maybe lower at other schools and higher at others. My point is that race is not the only hook, and sometimes not the strongest hook. Yet, if you look on this board there are threads and more threads denouncing AA and not one denouncing the legacy hook. Is it somehow more unfair for people of color to get an advantage than it is for legacy or the rich donors?</p>

<p>Does it bother me that someone who has legacy or who's parents have donated a building is going to get in over my son? Not much. I understand that colleges are running a business and are going to do what is best for them. What does bother me is that some people are outraged about AA but not about the other hooks. In your post you quoted a 20 point bump for athletes, the same as for blacks, then you said "simply outrageous." Why do I feel that your outrage was not about the athletes?</p>

<p>I notice that you are "Law School Bound." I think that once you get there you will see that eveything is "up for debate"</p>

51

<p>1) I don't support legacy admissions, but at least it's not judging people on race - much worse in my opinion. Judging people based on their parent's contributions to the school isn't great, but it is lightyears ahead of judging people based on skin color. Unlike race, it is a relevant factor in the family's relationship with the school - albeit one that I don't think should matter.</p>

<p>2.) HYP legacies might be just a touch more intelligent than the average person in society, no? Stands to reason their kids would be, as well.</p>

<p>3.) Harvard study: legacies: 27% more likely to graduate with honors compared to entire student body. URMs: 40% more likely to fail or drop out.</p>

52

<p>Uhh.</p>

<p>Legacies = predominantly white and priveleged
URM's = not.</p>

53

<p>Racial stereotype much?</p>

54

<p>The bottom line, if you are a RICH URM, you DO NOT deserve the AA advantage. If inner city schools are the problem, guess what, we should FIX the INNER CITY SCHOOLS. We simply are not fixing the problem at the root but are trying to mend the branches which is not at all effective.</p>

55

<p>"Racial stereotype much?" your not a my space ho dont use those words</p>

56

<p>Most colleges want a balanced student body, and that includes racial balance, geographic balance, etc. A President of an Ivy League college told me that too many students think of college admissions as a reward for doing well in high school but what colleges want (aside from athletes, the biggest "hook") are the future leaders of tomorrow. They want the people who will be leaders in the black communities and hispanic communities as well as white kids.
Often middle class blacks are accepted because they are well educated and will do well in school. But most middle class blacks are just a generation or so from poverty.When I was born (a parent here) there weren't any rich blacks because we had segregation until the 1960s and it took a long time after that before there was real progress.
This country is what, 16% black and NONE of the elite schools come close to that (not saying they should), so don't begrudge that small percentage of kids who have worked hard to get there and make your school a better place with a variety of opinions and life experiences.</p>

57

<p>By the way, I'm the OP, and I was obviously joking about the Republican bit. I happen to enjoy sarcasm, so thanks for calling me a phony liberal. </p>

<p>College process is becoming ridiculous because of AA. I see a Phillippino putting himself down as a Hispanic. I see an Egyptian identifying herself as an African American. I see Asians who mark themselves as "other/unidentified." Why should we have to twist our heritages like this?</p>

<p>I do realize that Affirmative Action carries a strong message, but it just doesn't work. There's no reason to keep pushing something that doesn't work.</p>

<p>Also, I'm very offended by what Northstarmom said:

[quote]
Second -- It's clear that you have no idea about the disadvantages that poor people face, particularly when they also go to bad schools.

[/quote]

I've always respected her as a helpful CCer, but this is very disrespectful. My parents make less than $30k/yr. You really think I went to SAT prep classes and had tutors? I worked incredibly hard both in and out of school, and colleges don't even recognize my hard work because I'm Asian.</p>

58

<p>These are two major, but inherently weak, arguments for AA:</p>

<p>Argument A: AA remedies past injustices
Argument B: AA helps minorities, who are often disadvantaged</p>

<p>In response to A, there is no way that a student should benefit simply because his great great grandfather was a slave. For all anyone knows, this kid could be the son of a CEO or ex-Secretary of State. Minorities have come very far, and the generalization that "minority = disadvantaged" no longer holds.</p>

<p>This brings me to B, if the goal of AA is to help the disadvantaged, then let it! But there are now too many rich/priveleged URMs for AA to be solely race-based. AA should take into consideration ecnomoic and social status. I think the reason AA refuses to change is that URM status is easier to determine than socioeconomic status.</p>

<p>catherine says "so don't begrudge that small percentage of kids who have worked hard to get there." But keep in mind that there are majority students (whites and asians) that have worked even harder and are even smarter, but do not get in because of their race. This sounds really racist, and I guess technically it is, but asians (in the US) are smarter than other races. This is not due to some inherent racial proclivity to learning; rather, asians are "selected" to come to the United States. Considering a country like China, it is extremely difficult to get out, and so an education and intelligence is required. I really don't like the argument that asians do well because "their parents make them." No, their parents have been selected, and pass their genes on to their children. It's as simple as that. If you want more proof, look at a company like Intel, which probably doesn't do AA much. Something like 30% of employees are Asian or Indian (South Asian). Obviously, asians and indians are the better engineers.</p>

59

<p>Adding to my post, Argument B also is underinclusive since it doesn't count all the disadvantaged non-URMS....</p>

60

<p>You forgot argument C: a rainbow of colors on campus makes everyone learn better. </p>

<p>It should be noted that the lame duck argument C (nobody truly believes it) is responsible for Michigan's victory at the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I am still waiting to hear from someone on how anyone was benefitted by a barely/non-qualified minority being recruited, accepted, laughed at by his peers in chemistry for lack of basic algebra, and failed.</p>

<p>I think it's fairly self-evident that most collegiate topics don't deal with race and that the best way to learn with other kids is by working with smarter kids. It's not the college's job to provide black kids for you to study with; it's their job to provide smart kids for you to study with. So I'll ask again: who is served by a black student bringing everyone in his lab's grade down because he can't do 9th grade math in a top 25 school?</p>

<p>Proponent's of "diversity" always say that, "well in a discussion about racial profiling the discussion would be much more vivid with minorities there."</p>

<p>Temporarily forgetting the fact that I can count the number of times I discussed racial profiling in college on 0 hands, I always grant them that. I'll admit it probably would add to the discussion and improve the education in the classroom.</p>

<p>Diversity helps the classroom learning experience of: racial profiling discussions</p>

<p>Having the most possible intellegence, regardless of color, helps the classroom learning experience of:
History
Biology
Chem
Philosophy
Economics
Sociology
Political Science
English
Literature
etc, etc, etc</p>

<p>This isn't a difficult question.</p>