<p>Raw51188, doesn't it just create that same cycle for poor people unaffected by racial AA? Aren't you just denying a poor white/asian kid that same opportunity to better himself?</p>
<p>I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way to justify race AA over economic AA. Economic AA would mostly help the URMS who are currently benefitting from race AA anyway, but it would me a fair policy IN PRINCIPLE so no one could complain about it like we are now. Yes, unfortunately we live in a society where many poeple will look at a black person or a hispanic person and assume things about them. But that is not going to change because of race AA. Instead, another stereotype is added. It is well known that many people assume URMS are not qualified to be at whichever colleges they attend. If AA becomes economic, the people helped will mostly be the same (poor URMS) but now a group that does not need help (wealthy URMS) will not benefit while a group that does need help (poor asians, whites, etc.) will. Seems fair to me. And, in response to what many may be thinking, they percentages of different races probably would not change much.</p>
<p>Bill5, with your amazing skill in logic and rhetoric, you should run for Congress.</p>
<p>The fact is that racially-based AA gives somewhat legitimate arguments to the racists who would say something like that.</p>
<p>David,</p>
<p>Of course there is justification....back by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>As for another stereotype....we went from being biological inferior to being seen as not worthy of going to a good school? I'd take the latter any day. AA was not designed to change the bias that people have, it was meant to ensure that minorities (and women) were represented in higher education. Trickle dow economics of a sort.</p>
<p>BTW, there are schools that GUARENTEE to meet need. Poor white kids do not get shafted, as adcoms use searches by zip code and applications to make decisions. And, if you are familiar with the CSS and FAFSA, poor white kids do have an EFC, sometimes lower than some URMs. Please, the URM numbers at many schools would have to be far larger to pick an affluent URM over a poor non-URM. Jeez...read Shape of the River, by Bowen and Bok.</p>
<p>IsleBoy: I agree with you on some points, but you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.</p>
<p>First of all, people who claim a test is "racially biased" amuse me. It's possible that one ethnicity as a whole scores worse than another, but that doesn't mean the test itself is biased. What it means is that one race has had opportunities (probably educational) not afforded another. It's true, school funding should be equalized across the board, giving city schools and suburban schools the same opportunities. I agree with you there.</p>
<p>But I don't see how racial AA helps URMs be treated "fairly" in the admissions process. I think, instead, it helps overrepresented groups be treated unfairly.</p>
<p>By virtue of definition, you'd have to have power to be discriminatory atleast according to psychologist and sociologist).</p>
<p>How do you explain the underperformance of kids from Hawaii, even though the state is majoritarian Asian (and not the ones that qualify for AA)?</p>
<p>The SAT is biased cuturally as well as economically. Read The Big Test by Nicholas LeMann.</p>
<p>"Aeggie, please give me an example of where a white male was helped by AA."</p>
<p>I gave one in my post and it wasn't coded or anything. Look at any small LAC which is has a large majority of females. The standards for men are lowered because they want more men. That includes white men.</p>
<p>It's not about being fair to those who have traditionally had more access (i.e. non-URMs), it's about making sure that URMs are given access to the opportunity to study at the same schools as non-URMs.</p>
<p>If college admssions were fair, the best qualified candidates would always win admissions...no athletes, legacies, in-state/out-of-state designations, special talents, or developmental candidates. If you're going to advocate getting rid of AA for women and URMs, then get rid of it all, to be fair.</p>
<p>It would be a social calamity, but it would be somewhat principled.</p>
<p>This discussion is a little biased. It's all about where to draw the line. Most non-URMs (and those URMs that do not benefit from AA) want it dismantled. Most URMs who are affected by AA want to keep it (although better justified). Guess whose's going to get their way if push comes to shove and people have to vote? Hint: it's not URMs.</p>
<p>I especially liked Raw's statement about AA...to me AA gives those individuals who would not have had a chance to continue their education, a chance to better themselves, to educate themselves and give those individuals not only a chance to improve their lives, but to also contribute back to society. I would rather break the cycle than let it stand due to the fact that some people view it as "lacking principle".</p>
<p>Whenever AA comes up people always go to race...funny people leave out legacy status, money contributions, and gender...what exactly makes those factors any better than race???</p>
<p>I always question why no one focuses on the attitudes people have towards minorities in the college admissions process. The burden always falls on the minority to prove their worth to everyone. What about the people with the ridiculous generalizations...why doesn't anyone question why they have those attitudes toward minorities in the first place?</p>
<p>I personally think that before students complain about AA, they need to see the percentage of URMs at top schools. Usually, the top schools are not more than around 15% african american and hispanic combined. This leaves 85% of the class open to students who will not benefit from AA whatsover. And even with affirmative action, we cannot assume that the minority students are any less qualified. Of course we have all heard stories about black students with 3.0s and 1800 SATs who were admitted to Harvard, but that is not the norm. Before you guys get upset about the system, think about how many spots AA really affects. BTW- I am a lower-income black female so I would benefit from either socioeconomic AA or the AA that is in place today. I don't know whether I am for or against the system but I think we really need to step aside and look at the whole picture.</p>
<p>I have to agree squiggle...even with AA, the majority of American colleges and universities are still majority white. So, I am not exactly sure why people feel so threatened...</p>
<p>It's because we may look different, have different values, or are unfamiliar to the majority...that is until they get to college.</p>
<p>Can you imagine if AA were not implemented to ensure access and a presence on campuses, then I'm not sure there would be much contact at all.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel better in a diverse crowd...I am not exactly sure what I would do if I were to be surrounded by popped collars and birkenstocks...J/K!!</p>
<p>I'm in the Pacific Northwest...I know about being surrounded by brikenstocks and pop-collars. :)</p>
<p>If colleges throw out AA, the number of URMs being admitted would have a significant drop. And when less URM's are admitted, those who are admitted will less likely enroll. And in the years following, fewer URMs will apply to those colleges, leading to a huge overall decrease in URM population in those colleges. Colleges want to ensure that there will be a decent percentage of URMs in high-mid income class, who can encourage and represent the rest of the URMs, which will supposedly lead to better life conditions for them. </p>
<p>It's not working well though, in my opinion. It's not really fair for a lot the asians to be discriminated in college admissions process because their cultures often put huge emphasis (i must admit, sometimes to a bit obsessive degree like my parents) on education and success, and as a result there being a lot of them with very good credentials for colleges.</p>
<p>Oh COME ON IsleBoy, don't flatter yourself. It's hardly xenophobia that makes people (me at least) anti-AA. Instead, it's the fact that if two candidates look exactly the same on paper, academically, extracurricular-wise, even economically, but one is black and the other is white, we all know which will be admitted.</p>
<p>Giving preference to one race (any race) over another is hardly an avenue to eliminate perceived racial barriers.</p>
<p>Right, so you'd give it to the white guy. I get it.</p>
<p>And yet, country clubs and gated communities do it all the time.</p>
<p>I don't need to flatter myself, but what do I know, right?</p>
<p>And, IsleBoy, this is something I'm interested in also. So you say minorities are discriminated against and deserve AA, et al. But do Asians deserve to be reverse discriminated against? I read somewhere that something like 23% of Harvard applicants are Asian yet only 4% of the US population is Asian. Should the Asians admitted to Harvard thus number only 4% of Harvard's class?</p>
<p>For myself, yes. I'm part Japanese. To be discriminatory would mean that I would have to have the power to do something. I don't, as the majority is still non-URM.</p>
<p>Ha, I'd give it to the white guy. Wonderful.</p>
<p>You know what, I honestly wouldn't care who it goes to. Flip a coin, whatever. But giving the spot to a minority automatically only BUILDS racial barriers; it certainly does not eliminate them.</p>