<p>And the thread has effectively turned from intelligent discussion to a middle school quarrel...</p>
<p>Here, let me put things back on track:</p>
<p>Affirmative action is lame.</p>
<p>I won't read the last 15 pages: all I'll say is that I think that the "Race" question on applications should be removed. then it'd be much harder for racism to be an issue</p>
<p>It's not even that it's only on the application, but it's on everything! Almost every college I took a tour at had a little card to fill out with at least three questions: Name, Intended Major, and RACE. There are more important things to know about me...</p>
<p>Granfallooner- I read that long thing that you had a while ago: no offense, but you sound Communist.</p>
<p>Let me explain. If you haven't read Karl Marx's work, then I sound like a big jerk. But by no means do I mean to do harm. Here are my parallels:</p>
<p>1) The "evil face of capitalism" that you draw, involving the unskilled, skilled and specialized levels of employment directly relates, in my mind, to the evil Bourgeouise that Marx depicts</p>
<p>2) The continuance of the system unless we make a direct confrontation</p>
<p>3) In order to fix the problem, we need taxes- although Communism is on a much larger scale, higher taxes can also be Socialist, which many ignorant people see as Communism.</p>
<p>Although I agree with much of what you say, I will burst your bubble by saying that things won't change. You suggest that we must tax- tax who? It's impossible to tax the lower-class citizens that require the education, for they are labled "lower class" for a reason.</p>
<p>Do you really think the upper-class will willingly give away their "hard earned money" if they don't see it as an investment?</p>
<p>how long do you think the sympathy filled middle-class can hold up? Since they already support the majority of the tax base, I would say not long.</p>
<p>The problem with these arguments is that people make them philosophically which is idiotic. Philosophical arguments just throwing two opposing diametric world views against each other and argue about whose assumptions are more true.</p>
<p>If you look at the statistical information you'll have a more realistic view of how affirmative action works.</p>
<p>Most statistics (such as the academic/accomplishment index of students which consists of a weighted score of class rank, SAT scores, ec's which are assigned point values) have a pretty normal gaussian distribution with most people being around average. Most under-represented minorities have a gaussian distribution that has a similar range but a lower mean than white applicants. This is true on a wide array of academic statistics and tests. This can be explained by many things; since intelligence/smartness/whatever is affected by many factors and many of them when combined are greter than the sum of their parts, its easy to understand why rich, white people from stable families do better on average than minorities. And indeed, there are many members of minority groups who are on the high-achieving end of the tail that do deserve to be at the ivies, but there are also many that are much lower, have done less work, and yet gain admissions to top universities; thus denying a spot to better qualified and harder working people who are equivalent in everyway except skin color. Now if race were only a minor factor, you would expect most people not to notice the difference in the average academic/achievement index between those URM's that are admitted versus the general student population.</p>
<p>But often those differences can be quite dramatic. As I noted, URM's that got into UCBerkeley (a very rigorous school unafraid to fail students despite race or gender) because of affirmative action failed at 5 times the rate of those URM's that were qualified. You can hear many anecdotes about someone who is hispanic that was the president of one club and was barely in the top 10% of her class getting into Stanford, yet someone who is also an immigrant who happens to be Indian or East Asian and has gone similar hardship but has much better scores and activities is rejected. Its hard to quantify these things, but as a whole these applicants are substantially less qualified than those who are admitted the normal way. Is skin color really worth that much on admissions? Diversity is of course a laudable goal but do you really have to be so diverse as to substnatially undermine standards and enforce a defacto race quota system that tries to force equal results? </p>
<p>The argument is also made that these URM's are more likely to go back to their communities and help them. Of course, empirically this is hardly the case; many use their newfound position to land high-paying jobs and often forget about the communities they were from.</p>
<p>As a society America should try to change the factors that make the distribution of achievement, income, and education inequal between all the races. Affirmative action as a whole though does not accomplish this goal, at least not anymore, and should be discarded. It only draws attention away from real problems.</p>
<p>Polite:</p>
<p>Again, sources?</p>
<p>Also, calling me someone who cannot make a sound arguement is attacking me personally (a tried and true debate technique). Where are your peer-reviewed sources???</p>
<p>As for failing at 5 times the rate at UC--Berekeley, I'd point to the Ivies and LACs where that IS NOT the case. For your arguement to hold true, then it is NECESSARY for it to be true, especially at the harder schools that take the less 'statistically' qualified URM. If the private schools can do it, why do you think UC-B can't? Becuase, there is no guarentee to meet need (which places disproportionately more pressure on those in the lower-income brackets, like some URM groups), nor do many care about persistance due to its size (see even non-URM values, although higher).</p>
<p>The problem is that American society does not try to change some factors that create the 'distribution' of a chievement, income, and educational background between races, in part, because the non-URM majority does not recognize inequity in the system until it comes to college admissions. That is why a theoretical ideal is not an answer, because it is affected by social perceptions by those who are 30 or more years of age (about when college AA began to affect admissions). Last time I check that would be an over whelming MAJORITY.</p>
<p>Personally, I do not like AA, but I am not ready to give it up, precisely because my peers believe that a URM is often judged to be 'inferior' based on SAT 'evidence'. Please, if all else were equal, a non-URM would turn to the standardized test to show who is more qualified. And a poster here, who has posted under a different thread that does not use race as a reason is freely using it as the reason a non-URM friend got denied by a highly selective school over someone who is a URM. Right. And it is ODD that this discussion mostly comes up during or after the wait to find out where one gets into college. </p>
<p>The real problem is that some non-URMs IGNORE the conditions under which URMs live, day-in and day-out. To think that has been dealt with in college admissions, while it is present in all other sector of society is a bit odd.</p>
<p>What AMERICA should do is DIFFERENT that what does happen. The MAJORITY always struggles to hold on to power. And, when they lose some of it they do not go without a fight.</p>
<p>IB.</p>
<p>Correction:</p>
<p>"...a non-URM would turn to the standardized test to show who is more qualified. And a poster here, who has posted under a different thread that does not use race as a reason for an admissions denial is freely using it here as the reason a non-URM friend got rejected by a highly selective school over someone who is a URM..."</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>Because the Ivies have massive grade inflation and don't fail people. Duh. I'm gonna ignore the rest of your post because its all opinion and respiel and a waste of time. No offense.</p>
<p>Correction:</p>
<p>"...a non-URM would turn to the standardized tests to show who is more qualified. And a poster here, who has posted under a different thread that does not use race as a reason for an admissions denial is freely using it here, along with a myriad of other factors which I choose not to refer to because it would weaken my argument, as the reason a non-URM friend got rejected by a highly selective school over someone who is a State Senator's Daughter..."</p>
<p>Polite:</p>
<p>I thought you might say that. And some Ivies do not. As for ignoring the rest of my post, go ahead. Must be a little difficult to ignore what you don't agree with. I'd find that exhausting.</p>
<p>Granfall:</p>
<p>So perhaps you should attack developmental admits and special priviledges of those that are connected, instead of add the caveat that the girl is Black. Way to not make it about race.</p>
<p>Your words: "...A contemplative person might want to distinguish between affirmative action or a college's arbitrary preference being the cause of a (below average in qualification) URM's admission..."</p>
<p>You linked below average to URMs as a category. Nevermind that there can also be qualified URMs. There are tons of colleges out there, and you think they all have one formula? That the relationships stay constant? That we know all the definitionals? And, of course, since we are not present at the adcom sessions, how would we be able to distinguish between them?! I don't think anyone is omnipotent...or I would hope not.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"...A contemplative person might want to distinguish between affirmative action or a college's arbitrary preference being the cause of a (below average in qualification) URM's admission..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay? And who said I was referring specifically to her admission? That's where the fallacy of your assumption lies. </p>
<p>I put "below average in qualification" there in parentheses, because I did not want to stipulate that all URMs are below average in qualification. If a URM has a great school record, test scores, and activities, then it very well may come off as a fair choice.</p>
<p>Other people have been complaining about preferential treatment given to URMs, too. Perhaps instituted affirmative action isn't necessarily to blame. Afterall, most Adcoms claim they are "colorblind." Perhaps it's the Adcom exercising its priviledge to pick whomever they damn well please, for whatever reason, whether "qualified" or not, whether URM, politician's daughter, or provider of covert sexual favors.</p>
<p>Just a, how you say, "thought/observation/opinion."
GF.</p>
<p>I finally got around to reading your post; and fortunately it was not a bunch of books being referenced at least.</p>
<p>I would say that the OP was a little wrong in having such a strong presumption that race was the only factor, but I have to agree in many cases the race card trumps all other factors and many of those member of minority groups who get in have much less qualifications than those who get in the normal way and truth be told they normally do not do as well either.</p>
<p>Despite that weakness though, just because the way he realized the unfairness of Affirmative Action happenened to be a little vulgar to most people; it doesn't change a lot of the unfairness of AA. This girl would've made a normal college anyways, its not like she would've become poor at any rate. And from the OP's comments and a lot of anecdotal evidence, URM's are substantially more underqualified on average to their non-urm's counterparts.</p>
<p>And I would have to say that ignoring the conditions under which URM's live is not that big of a crime. Many force it on themselves by their own decisions. I'm a big believer in individual responsibility and that all the things you talked about could be considered on a personal basis without bringing race into the mix. If AA were ended, URM admissions would probably drop down but there would still be some minorities at school, so it would not be a huge loss.</p>
<p>As I said the cost benefit analysis points to AA having much diminished benefits now. AA is no longer shifting the average performance of URM's up. Nor do they necessarily increase diversity with middle class black people taking the place of middle class white people. Schools don't release such info There are probably other ways differences in minority enrollment could be addressed without inciting racial tensions or disenfranchising qualified applicants.</p>
<p>And quite frankly, AA undermines the ability of certain groups to integrate. It probably contributes the culture of victimization that keeps the inner city so stagnant and gives legitimacy to the idea that the game is so skewed in favor of white men that one shouldn't try. Did the Irish get the benefit of AA? No, but they still ended up integrating fairly well even though it was an intergenerational process. I would put a big negative on the fact that AA causes moral hazard and undermines America's ability to absorb new peoples. Many people don't think, "I'll work harder and improve myself to get in." Many just think, "Lets do what it takes to be a little bit better than the average applicant from my demographic group." Its not suppose to be easy or necessarily completely fair, but since racism is for the most part gone--and economic poverty and other socioeconomic factors are not specific to certain races, even though they are correlated--AA should go out the window too.</p>
<p>First, I'm opposed to AA. Second, I haven't had time to read every word of every single post, so someone else has probably already made a similar point. Still...
AA makes more sense if we consider that the "hook" is not skin color but the different life experiences such as what sbroy8188 and Isleboy are talking about. Although these may not necessarily be the kind of experiences a student seemingly "works" hard for (like being Chemistry Olympic state champion) or deliberately seeks out (such as going on a house-building trip to Mexico), they are still life experiences that will bring diverse ideas and view-points to campus. The rich white high school kid has traveled around the world, attended Ivy summer programs, or perhaps landed a great internship in his uncle's company. He brings the fruit of those learning opportunities to college. The minority kid may or may not have done as many of those traditional Ivy-bound sorts of things, but he may have learned just as much from navigating difficult economic and social realities. Maybe he had to figure out how to learn AP Calculus BC or Physics C on his own despite an ineffective, underqualified teacher--something his non-URM classmates didn't have to worry much about since they had money to contract private tutors or could simply get help from their Dad who's a math professor. This is maybe not the best example, but it's a real one. Or maybe now, while we are all wasting our breath on this forum, the URM kid is spending every waking minute writing essays for scholarships so he can afford to attend college without becoming an endentured servant.</p>
<p>TheGFG is absolutely right. I can understand why people validate AA saying that it rewards those who have worked so hard through life. But if that's what you want, look for that. Look for disadvantaged, low income, inner city kids (many of whom are URMs) but don't specifically seek out URMs. Rising through the ranks despite a bad upringing says alot about your character so you should be rewarded for it, but being a URM does NOT define your character, only your heritage. AA might give advantage to many URMs who have suffered the previously described disadvantages, but it also gives brownie points to that 1/8 Native American 7/8 white privelaged kid from the Hamptons.</p>
<p>It is for this reason that many schools, specifically California state schools, have established the "adversity advantage," giving points to people who have had troubled upbringings (as expressed through essays, additional info, etc.). The problem with this program is, things can be misconstrued when people simply complain about their lives. For instance, my father died when I was young and I was adopted by a loving adoptive father. I could misconstrue this to claim that my father's death had such a horrible effect on me and then I was verbally abused by the man my mother married afterwards (which is not true).</p>
<p>So, after describing the fundamental flaws behind both AA and the "adversity advantage," what can we do? How can we give the underprivelaged kids the help they need? My answer: look at two things that don't rely on race and cannot be faked--your income (which establishs your socioeconomic level) and the type of school you go to (which establishes the advantages/disadvantages you've had in the academic realm). This, I believe is the only way to create a "level playing field" without simply plucking out token URMs because of the color of their skin.</p>
<p>I'd have to disagee. Being a URM in a majoritarian non-URM culture does define you for better or worse if you are a URM. It is the non-URM that defines the URM and how they are treated currently and how they were treated historically. Talk about revisionist history.</p>
<p>I don't like AA, but I like--even less--the idea that non-URMs create or maintain cultural and social norms that do impact how URMs are viewed. They say things like racism has largely been dealt with, etc....</p>
<p>The answer is to work at the primary and secondary school levels to erase or minimize the discrepencies, rather than talking about "fairness" when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>If those disadvantages faced by low-icome URMs and non-URMs are dealt with, then AA would indeed be unnecessary. However, since most non-URMs focus on the college admissions process, instead of talking about how to change those structural and cultural 'gaps' that URMs (and low-income kids) toil under.</p>
<p>Again, it's odd that non-URMs can be viewed as individuals, while URMs are identified by their group affiliation. So, it is indeed not looking at the individual with respect to URMs, while non-URMs have the luxury of being seen as individuals, whether it is because of historical social power or influence or because of sheer numbers.</p>
<p>Yes, just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>Integrate?</p>
<p>Right, you think non-URMs want URMs to integrate?! Right. Try more like, loose their culture through indoctrination by the majority. Bald use of power. Very funny.</p>
<p>It is every individuals choice whether they 'blend' with the majority. Do so or not. If the latter, the majority see it as a reason to be supicious of motives. If you do 'blend', you give up your identity away from the majority. Funny how non-URMs don't have to do this, while URMs often do. A house-slave....wow. I wonder why some non-URMs prefer to keep URMs in their place using standardized tests, and norming across groups.</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>Also to answer an earlier post...follow the link: </p>
<p>Not all cultures are created equal. The Protestant-derived culture of America is worth integrating.</p>
<p>And you don't give away identity, you actually assume one. Instead of being a "black" person or a "mexican," you become an individual ... in short, an American.</p>
<p>LoL, saying standardized tests are racists are just the minority's way of justifying rent-seeking policies. Its not that hard, read english books, learn the language, associate with people outside your race and culture. There's nothing that says America should make all cultures have equal results; some are just inferior at producing motivated students.</p>
<p>Let's not get into a debate about cultural equivalency, but if you move here, you better integrate.</p>
<p>Polite Antagonis:</p>
<p>It seems as if you're implying that the Protestant-derived culture is a step ahead of other cultures...</p>
<p>Anyhow, if you happen to be a part of or can blend into the majority group, then it would be worth integrating into. Still, the Protestant-derived culture has obvious flaws that still plague society today. Religion vs The State still influences aspects of modern society. Not only that, this "culture" has done its fair share of discrimination that still affects minorities today. Keep in mind, discrimination and bigotry were carried out under the guise of "Protestant values". </p>
<p>Not to say that other cultures don't have their issues because they do, but to elevate the Protestant-derived culture above others...</p>
<p>Lo and behold you can be black/Mexican/Irish/whatever, be an individual, and be an American. I don't understand what is wrong with identifying yourself as American and another culture. Still, it is an individual's choice on what aspects of their culture he or she chooses to incorporate into their life. No one can make that decision for another person.</p>
<p>Going on to standardized testing, I don't think tests are necessarily racist, but I do think they don't account for discrepancies within the system. As IsleBoy pointed out, if you get a crappy education due to structural problems within the system, you are going to do badly on the standardized test. I think the tests point out problems within the system that need to be addressed.</p>
<p>Cited from the article in the link in post #277:</p>
<p>"Invariably, the critical problem is that a very high number of young blacks are entering college with wholly inadequate academic credentials, ambition, and study habits."</p>
<p>Clearly, as IsleBoy states, the problem of inadequate academic credentials needs to be addressed in primary and secondary education. College is too late. Also, despite the fact that the article states that blacks do graduate at higher percentages from elite institutions like Harvard, one would have to wonder if the problem of inadequate preparation could be a side-effect of AA. As far as study habits, I think that is something for which colleges are indeed offering help in the form of tutoring and academic skills centers and minority mentoring programs. But the ambition factor, well that has to be fomented from within the minority culture itself.</p>