<p>woops, lol, *prove</p>
<p>Stanford's is lower because Stanford is private and gets a much higher proportion of apps from kids of other states students than UCs. UCs are state-funded therefore they have to accept mostly in state kids which accounts for the high Asian percent. Privates usually have no requirement as to who has to go there and where they are from, therefore it makes much more sense that Private schools have a make-up that is more similar to the make-up of schools nation-wide. It doesnt matter that Stanford is in Cali because they can accept as many kids from OOS as they want whereas UCs have to keep OOS kids limited. Your theory would make more sense if you were comparing the state schools in Cali that are commited to diversity Vs. the UCs, because the races of their applicant pool and amount of in-state kids they have to accept would be more similar than the comparison of UC to Stanford</p>
<p>I just want to state this fact again:
Those against affirmative action are not cosidering two important things about the minorities who are "taking away spots" from the "more deserving white and asian children"
a) At the top universities, the average amount of all African American, Native American, and Hispanic students combined is 15% of the school. There is a larger percentage of just asians at most top schools(usually around 25-30%) than there are all other URMs combined. After the 15% is subtracted, that leaves 85% for the "qualified" non-URMs. Why are you complaining about taking up 85% of the spots in a college. Maybe colleges are just a crapshoot and although some students have the statistics to get into a top college, they just did not mesh well with their representative or with the committee.
b) The other assumption made during this affirmative action discussion is the idea that all URMs are unqualified. Yes, some URMs get in with lower scores. Yes, some URMs are unqualified. But I know plenty of URMs who have gotten rejected from top schools with scores and grades that put them on par with the schools standards.
All in all, the affirmative action debate is a way for bitter students to find someone to blame after a college denial. Maybe a better white student took your spot, or an athlete, or a talented musician, who sent in a tape and the music department feel in love. You cannot pinpoint the one student who took "your spot" because that spot was never yours to begin with.</p>
<p>thank you squiggle.</p>
<p>Racial AA can definitely be offensive and insulting. Why does College Board, for example, employ racial subcategories in its National Merit program? I'm assuming it's because blacks and Hispanics are less likely to achieve scores high enough to earn the status of NM Commended Scholar, National Merit Semi-Finalist, or NM Finalist, so they instituted "National Hispanic Scholar" awards and "National Achievement Program Participant" awards (for blacks), both of which require much lower PSAT scores than the regular NM awards, so as not to "discriminate" against blacks and Hispanics. Is this supposed to be some kind of bone? The racial awards don't even involve a monetary prize! My son, a NM Finalist who happens to be Hispanic, was insulted at the assumption that he needed a special, lowered-standards award. He was also offended when people claimed that he'd have a better shot at getting into an Ivy because he's Hispanic. Actually his stats were solid Ivy stats, so he felt that he would be quite capable of getting in on merit alone with no help from AA.</p>
<p>As for economic AA, it may fail to fully take into account the minority immigrant experience. For example, a degree from Latin America is not accorded the same respect as a US degree or a degree from India or China. So despite being a college-educated professional with experience, my husband had to accept a much lower level job here in the US and gradually work his way up. The United States has given him great opportunities, so please don't think I'm saying he should have been entitled to more, but that slow start has really affected our family's ability to accumulate savings. So now, since he finally has a good job, our EFC is too high and we can't afford to send our son to the Ivy he worked so hard to get into on merit, not race. A failed system, all around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The racial awards don't even involve a monetary prize!
[/quote]
as a National Achievement Scholar, you can receive the same types of scholarships as National Merit Scholars. my best friend is National achievement and got a $2500 scholarship.</p>
<p>Thanks for the input, hotpiece. That's good, I guess.</p>
<p>But I can tell you for sure that the Hispanic one carries no monetary award.</p>
<p>are you serious!!! that completely sucks, theGFG.</p>
<p>i just got on the National Merit website, and at the welcome page they only have links for National Merit and National Achievement, National Hispanic is not even mentioned, wow.</p>
<p>What you fail to realize, is again, for every spot there are 10 people who are equally qualified. Your son could very well be qualified. However, he doesn't HAVE to compete, because an adcom sees a hispanic with excellent stats as having struck gold. Perhaps if he was put into the general population and made to compete, he would have been one of the unlucky people who were waitlisted etc. You seem so sure that your son got into his ivy on merit and not race? what makes you so sure? I love listening to parents who like to try and convince themselves that their kid got absolutely no help. At least on the acceptance boards here at CC, when an underqualified person, whether minority or legacy makes it, they usually admit their advantage. </p>
<p>Second of all, I don't care how much of a percentage is set aside for minorities, its still wrong. The same goes for legacies and all the other admits who get an undeserved boost from watever they have going for them. And at stanford, whites and asians make up 65% of the population. that leaves 30% (subtracting international students), not 15% for minorities. Frankly, its very easy for you to ask "why are we complaining". Why we complain is because being a URM makes you automatically "mesh" with the committee. I realize college is a crapshoot. But the chances of winning for a normal kid are drastically reduced when spots are reserved for legacies, athletes, URM's, donor's kids, etc. And for the record, not a lot of schools care about music. I was a member of the National High School Honor Orchestra, and so was a friend of mine, and we both got rejected from Stanford and all the Ivy's we applied for. Athletics is much more visible in our society, so thats what the colleges truly care about.</p>
<p>No one ever assumed that ALL URM's are unqualified. The assumption was that they have an advantage, and therefore, if they were to compete with the general population, theres a good chance they might not make it.</p>
<p>It would do you some good to look at your son's situation and consider that perhaps he got some help over the rest of the crowd. It would be the humble thing to do. I understand your son worked hard, but so did the rest of us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would do you some good to look at your son's situation and consider that perhaps he got some help over the rest of the crowd. It would be the humble thing to do. I understand your son worked hard, but so did the rest of us.
[/quote]
so just because you worked hard, you should be accepted and her son rejected. maybe you didn't work hard enough. </p>
<p>and this debate is so pointless. colleges are like businesses, they will operate in what ever manner they see fit. so if you have a problem with AA, take it up with the school. Don't be upset with the minority who was accepted. they didn't make the admissions decision, someone else did.</p>
<p>dolitwak, you're making my point for me. As long as these programs exist, people like you will always second guess a minority admittance and wonder if their race gave them a needed advantage. That's why AA is counter-productive. Its foundation is an assumption that minorities need a boost to get in to elite colleges, and it therefore produces that assumption in everyone else.</p>
<p>I would like to know if you think colleges like work experience as much as impact volunteering or other EC's. Many times lower-income kids have to work during the school year. My son is the only one among the top academic tier at his school who actually works, and almost the only one of that group who is applying for financial aid. If a kid's job is something more impressive than working at McDonald's, then the Ivies might consider it valuable. But if not, like another poster said earlier, I think working can hurt poor students because that time would detract from their studies and the hours available to do other EC's. Legitimately, URM's might be less likely to have high level social contacts to help them get into those more impressive jobs. To be stereotypical, the Hispanic kid ends up with a landscaping job with the same company his dad works for, whereas the white kid either doesn't work or gets the title of paralegal in his dad's law office.</p>
<p>In the end, all of this stuff is just too hard for colleges to sort out because too many factors are involved. College admissions will never be fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other assumption made during this affirmative action discussion is the idea that all URMs are unqualified. Yes, some URMs get in with lower scores. Yes, some URMs are unqualified. But I know plenty of URMs who have gotten rejected from top schools with scores and grades that put them on par with the schools standards.
All in all, the affirmative action debate is a way for bitter students to find someone to blame after a college denial. Maybe a better white student took your spot, or an athlete, or a talented musician, who sent in a tape and the music department feel in love. You cannot pinpoint the one student who took "your spot" because that spot was never yours to begin with.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you read the posts carefully, you'll see a lot of people are clearly NOT making this assumption. You're about the 50-billionth person to regurgitate this theory.</p>
<p>"...That's why AA is counter-productive. Its foundation is an assumption that minorities need a boost to get in to elite colleges, and it therefore produces that assumption in everyone else...."</p>
<p>Actually, it was founded to help WOMEN and minorities in the workplace and housing. It was expanded after government realized that there are historic, as well as social and cultural reasons why those groups are treated unfairly in education.</p>
<p>It is counter productive in the sense that non-URMs, for instance, will view college admission of a minority as a 'lesser' qualified kid getting a space that was 'rightfully' a non-URMs spot to begin with. If everything else is equal, a non-URM usually ends up using standardized tests to justify how 'qualified' a URM is in reation to another student.</p>
<p>That is why people talk about doing away with AA, rather than a kid getting a boost for being a special talent, a legacy, a developmental admit, a geographical anomally, an in-state/out-of-state kid. I can see getting rid of AA, if all those other categories were also done away with. One reason why the other categories are discussed less maybe because some of them are disproportionatly used by non-URMs for college admissions.</p>
<p>AA has been around since the 1970's, while oppression by the majority has been around for a few hunderd years. Stereotypes of those who are different than oneself tends to be given life because they seem foreign and are taking something away from the MAJORITY. Look at the debate on immigration--past and present. (Legislation to REDUCE Chinese workers in the 19th century, and Hispanics today). During WWII, government placed Japanese-americans in INTERNMENT camps because they could be distinguished by particular features. Did you see Italian or German residents placed in those camps?! Nope. Why? Becuase they blended in.</p>
<p>To believe that AA is what started these stereotypes, and that people are discussing here, is to ignore the historic, social, economic, and cultural aspects of the majority and the lengths they went to to achieve it. If you need more proof...look at redistricting in Chicago (to keep blacks in a particular area in the 60's and 70's. Look at the development of large high-rise housing projects. Look at mortgage rates for URMs, funding for schools, healthcare, etc...).</p>
<p>I hope you're NOT suggesting that AA is bad because it stereotypes URMs and women. The glass cieling is still there for both groups. There are people who still believe that their spot was taken by a URM, nevermind that staistically, it was probably another non-URM that took his or her place.</p>
<p>Blame the hyper-competitive admissions market that was created by rankings like USNews for this phenomanon. Blame government for breaking up the group of 50 or so highly selective colleges and universities which used to try and keep aid awards similar so kids could choose schools based on fit, rather than rankings. Blame it on the SAT and ACT cottage industry. Blame it on schools not reporting rank in class to reduce competition between their students. Blame affluentt private and public secondary institutions for having several validictorians, salutatorian, handfulls of captains and co-captains so that kids can put it on their applications. Blame it on schools like Washington University who stopped guarenteeing to meet need for merit-based aid, in part based on test scores, spent more of their endowment, and strategically use the waitlist to gain in the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>Resentment towards AA, and other programs, comes generally only when people realize that they do not have that particular characteristic. URM status is sometimes easier to point out than then other charactersitics because the latter can 'blend' better. There is no unique sir name, no issues of skin tone, no zipcode difference. </p>
<p>To attribute the subtle judgements to AA being a major cause is to ignore our history. We try and dismantle AA because it takes something away from us, and suddenly it becomes "unfair". To debate fairness because one does not benefit from the particular program or from being a URM ignores the fact that URMs have faced discrimination from the time they are born. And, will likely face throughout their lifetime. It is odd that I do not see many kids fighting to assist other, perhaps, less affluent primary or secondary schools with large URM percentages for 'fairness' sake. It is only when non-URMs figure out that they do not get an extra bump, becuase they have been favored by society up until then, that they talk about the dangers of AA, or the fact that URMs are 'less qualified'. Non-URMs need AA too. To make themselves feel superior, and to blame their rejection on those who already do not have power. Way to go peers. I feel great now.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.
IB</p>
<p>Doing away with AA would, indeed, affect women the most, as they are the largest group of benefactors from the policy (regardless of race). In fact, I imagine that white women would be the worst hit if AA were to be done away with.</p>
<p>Wow, great post IsleBoy.</p>
<p>In the part of alabama where I'm from, if you're black, it doesn't matter if you have money or not... you're still black and you're still second class. Racism is still very much alive and will be regardless of wether or not stereotypical themes are perpetuated by AA. My high school is 99 percent black and even the kids whose parents are above the poverty line need something extra to get into "good" schools because the information is just not there to encourage them to reach for more. We are not told that we can go to schools that are not (shock!!) HBCUs and that there are other opportunities for us outside of nursing and vocational schools. It's been hard for me and its harder for URMs-period- and anyone who is not a minority has no room to speak because they haven't lived it.</p>
<p>IsleBoy is officially my hero. =)</p>
<p>Lewis: Very true, an usually not talked about much.</p>
<p>Shaddix & Kuni: Thank you for the props...just needed to say it (was trying to hold back) ;)</p>
<p>Sbro: It's tough...and people who have not livied it can afford to ignore what does go on for most URMs, even if they are affluent.</p>
<p>IB</p>