<br>
<blockquote> <p>I believe this thread was not intended to become another AA argument<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>It's very rare to find an AA thread that does not quickly degenerate into emotional and unproductive arguing. For the most part they are a waste of time - which is why I usually stay out of them.</p>
<p>In a perfect world we would not need affirmative action and we would all be judged on the content of our character. As it's not a perfect world, safeguards are necessary to help make sure things don't get as bad as they once were concerning equality. That said, congratulations to those accepted, and to those waitlisted or not accepted, Harvard certainly is not the only school in the world, however I understand your dissappointment. One last note: no offence, coureur, but I don't think thoughts and discussions on social issues are unproductive and a waste of time. I did not get the feeling that anyone was arguing, although I agree that things can go down hill quickly when discussing these kinds of matters.</p>
<p>What the earlier posts show is that AA is not the decisive edge that it is often portrayed. Moreover, the degree of "edge" is diminishing over time (which is a good thing), precisely because there are increasing numbers of highly-qualified URMs compared to even ten or fifteen years ago.</p>
<p>If AA works as expected, it will fade into irrelevance, at least at highly selective institutions, as the pool of high-performing URMs grows. That is precisely what Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in the Michigan Case anticipated (she specifically referenced 25 years).</p>
<p>However, the growing number of highly competitive URMs masks the continuing educational challenges for the majority of black and Latino K-12 students locked into underperforming and under-resourced schools, the effects of which are made worse by a popular youth culture that is often dismissive of academic achievement.</p>
<p>AA will succeed in creating a racially diverse leadership cadre in this country, which is what it was designed to do, but that cadre will be forced to grapple with a future society rended by class divisions that we only now are beginning to glimpse. This will be difficult for the US, which has long imagined itself a "classless" society. </p>
<p>I have confidence, however, that a racially diverse leadership cadre (in government, business, the professions and the military) will handle this challenge far better, far more justly, and with greater perceived legitimacy, than one that is largely white. AA may fix the problem of racial exclusion, it will not (and was not designed to) address the broader issue of economic inequality.</p>
<p>You are the ones who will make the difference! It is time! You are the generation that has been given the beginning tools to make the dreams come true. You have a chance to live your lives w/ an understanding of the past (of course), but more importantly w/ a pledge to the future. If you are going to ANY UNIVERSITY this coming fall, you live in an elite world. Take the time to be inclusive and not exclusive. Take the time to learn that the colour of you skin, your eyes, your hair is the tiny blessing that teaches us that diversity is a good thing. YOU ARE THE GENERATION THAT UNDERSTANDS THIS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER! Please take this time to learn not only what is taught in the classroom, but also to learn how to help each other make the world a better place FOR ALL WHO FOLLOW! I have such confidence in your ability to make the best of an imperfect world!</p>
<p>
[quote]
ok everyone knows blacks/hispanics have an edge when applying to top schools, so if some black girl gets into harvard with scores that belong at Boston University or New York University...then we all know what lead to her admissions (SKIN COLOR!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We all know this? We do? Who is "we"? </p>
<p>And what do "we" say when a white or asian student gets in with scores "that belong at BU or NYU"? I guess "we" assume he must have done something special -- Intel or the the Olympics or something. Yet "we" never give minorities the benefit of the doubt. Why is that?</p>
<p>If you're going to promote ignorance, don't drag the rest of society down with you.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>One last note: no offence, coureur, but I don't think thoughts and discussions on social issues are unproductive and a waste of time.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>When they descend into emotional arguments, name-calling, and insults they are.</p>
<p>then dont post coureur. haha your posts have been as pointless as the 'argument' that you claim has been going on...</p>
<p>and to saxfreq, and by 'we' and 'everyone' i am referring to the handful of educated/alert individuals who have an understanding of racial issues and the education system, so don't worry about. My post was meant for for the educated, so don't bother responding.</p>
<p>Hey, now! You kids are going to have to go to your rooms if you can't play nice!</p>
<p>amnesia, what colleges did you get into?</p>
<p>The handful of educated, alert individuals who have an understanding of racial issues?</p>
<p>If you are indeed part of this group, then surely you would not apply labels to people by skin color. Didn't Dr. King urge color-blindness? Skin color and ethnicity are part of the whole package. If a black or hispanic gets into Harvard with "NYU or BU" scores, then we can safely assume that he or she is an intelligent, motivated individual (at least according to the application). Not that skin color got them to a position they don't deserve; no part of that statement is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and to saxfreq, and by 'we' and 'everyone' i am referring to the handful of educated/alert individuals who have an understanding of racial issues and the education system, so don't worry about. My post was meant for for the educated, so don't bother responding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your snappiness is cute, really; but you did not address anything I said. I'll reiterate: What's your excuse when a white/asian applicant with lower SAT scores is accepted? Do you have one? Why is it that when a minority with "lower stats" is deemed undeserving when a white student with similar stats is not? Why do you give the white students the benefit of the doubt? Don't try make claims about knowing that such white acceptees don't exist, because they do exist; just as high-scoring minorities exist, apply, and are not accepted.</p>
<p>In terms of educated/alert individuals -- I often wonder why the ignorant count themselves among the people who know better. Don't make claims about my understanding of race or my education. I am a minority who did not have a 1600, nor did I put my racial status on all of my applications, yet I was not rejected by any school and am currently enrolled at Harvard. But I guess you can explain that away with "affirmative action," too, right? I know what it means to go to an underachieving high school, and I know what it feels like for the "educated/alert" individuals to second-guess my achievements under the guise of "having an understanding about racial issues and the educational system" -- because, of course, the rich kid at Exeter can really empathize, right?</p>
<p>My excuse for claiming that I know what I'm talking about is that I /do/ know what I'm talking about. What's yours?</p>
<p>Don't make claims about why minorities are accepted. It's bitter, childish, and undermines any understanding of anything that you claim to have.</p>
<p>After being rejected from Harvard, I wanted to know why, so I called and talked to my admission officer. She said, "To be blunt, we've already accepted all the Asians. If you were another race, you would've gotten in. I'm sorry." ... what do you think of that??</p>
<p>SATs : 2160</p>
<p>GPA: 4.0</p>
<p>EC: lots and leaders in some</p>
<p>Are you sure you didn't misinterpret? I'm almost certain setting racial quotas like that is illegal, and if it is, the Harvard admissions officers would know it and wouldn't want to publicly admit breaking the law.</p>
<p>I come from the official affirmative action debate hotbed and really, you can't form any sort of cohesive valid opinion about AA because you'd have to neglect or disregard important context or facts on both sides of the argument. What is occasionally upsetting is that posters have written "I didn't get in with my stats and I was also [insert URM here]." I'd like to think that their attitude and presumption that they could do less and get in with their race is what kept them out but it reveals the obvious edge conferred to applicants with URM status. I already see that in the few years since I applied to college, URM's that would have been sure locks for HYP four or five years ago are now being waitlisted or rejected and the URM's that are being accepted have stats comparable to many white acceptees. I am convinced that there is discrimination against Asians that is comparable to that of top colleges' discrimination against Jews through the '50's and '60's but maybe you guys are right and they just weren't good enough. :-P Anyway, AA is working slowly. While I still feel it's just bandaging the festering wounds of racism, oppression, economic inequity because of a lack of initiative on federal and state government level to really solve the problem of the racial divide in education, it does allow kids who tremendous potential and initiative to better themselves when they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. I only hope that they all realize that they have a very unique opportunity to mow down prejudices and set examples to their communities so that this cycle of defeat will eventually end.</p>
<p>I agree with AA 100% in principle. That is, it gives underpriveleged minorities a leg-up. Awesome. What I don't necessarily agree with is when similarly priveleged or under-priveleged groups are differentiated according to ethnicity, even when it may have no bearing on their situation. For example, in an area where Hispanics and Asians are equally discriminated (or even where Asians are more discriminated against) an Hispanic applicant would have more of a chance of being admitted than the Asian applicant with identical stats/ECs etc. This would happen even if the Asian was more discriminated against in said area than the Hispanic applicant. So what I am saying is that college AA does not always take into account how much of a disadvantage that kid would be coming from a specific ethnicity, and would assume a black kid from Exeter would have gone through as much as a black kid from the bible belt. </p>
<p>My solution (for a change lol)?
1. Only give someone the AA benefit if they are under a set income level and ignore ethnicity completely above that income level. This would level the playing field for upper-income applicants which, in reality, is already level. Upper class applicants could afford to live in cosmopolitan areas and thus suffer less from the handicaps of racism (which is largely targeted towards lower income groups anyway). This would allow the true sufferers of racism to be more easily identified and helped.
2. This part is more complicated, but I am confident it could be done if colleges went along with it. Basically, identify which ethnicity groups are discrimininated against in certain places through a large survey every few years (probably paid for by both colleges and government, I am sure the government probably does something like this anyway). Base AA benefit on how much someone would be discriminated against coming from that certain area. (Also take essays into account when determining how discriminated against someone is). Now here's the groundbeaking part: Instead of publishing %Black, %Asian etc. data the schools would only have to publish %Minority (1 Statistic!) data. This figure would ignore specific ethnicity and only consider the thing AA was created to consider - how much someone is handicapped by ethnicity. It would stop schools feeling pressured to discriminate against certain minorities (even if they are discriminated minorities) in favour of others just to make up higher number of 'rare' minorities. This would not only promote the spirit of AA, but would also lead to more qualified classes, as all discriminated minorities would be put on an equal field and thus the best of those could get in, as opposed to the current system where some more qualified minorities are passed over in favour of 'rarer' minorities. </p>
<p>The problem with my solution? It would most likely end up creating a more homogenous population. Hispanics and blacks would lose out while Asians would probably gain a lot and whites would be pretty much unaffected. However, it would be a much more effective way of ensuring that discriminated groups are helped and that is, after all, the goal of AA. </p>
<p>Note: I'm white, so I am pretty much neutral to the implementation of this system, I just think my way would make a lot more sense. </p>
<p>Thoughts? Rants? Raves? I think its a pretty good system considering I thought it up at 2.30 am my time lol.</p>
<p>Asians do not receive any sort of AA.</p>