<p>Actually, I understand what you are saying and I agree with you on a lot of points. I don't think you are longwinded...you might be #2 compared to another poster I remember :p. </p>
<p>I have only heard from my safeties and 1 school, Boston University. I am still waiting on a few others (NYU, UVA, Stanford, U Penn) so its been a stressful week so far. This weekend will be...interesting. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I don't know much about URichmond...but I have heard good things about it.</p>
<p>I agree with you guys in that different perspectives certainly enhance a campus environment. </p>
<p>I dunno. I'm conflicted. Different perspectives are always good, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between different perspectives and better qualifications. It just irks me that at some places URM status and certain SAT scores seem to merit rubber-stamp acceptance whereas an overrepresented student with the same scores is fighting for a shot.</p>
<p>I also see where you are coming from grad...there have been some blantant abuses of AA (as shown by a certain troll who will remain unnamed). It isn't perfect, that is true...hopefully a better solution could be devised in the future.</p>
<p>BTW, this is one of the most civil AA debates I have ever seen...</p>
<p>Grad:</p>
<p>I agree with you. But then it's a question about why so many people believe that the highly selective schools (i.e. Ivies), where admissions is uber competitive, are somehow going to always guarentee happiness or productivity. Notice that we don't fight for any other schools much beyond the top 25???</p>
<p>I've been pressured to apply to Ivies (and I did), before finding schools which I fit better at. It's the hype that often drives us to craziness. That is the flaw. We want to get ahead by going to somewhere prestigeous bcause it means more connections and a larger paycheck. But, at the same time, we know that admissions can be random...so we try to control what we can. We apply to more colleges which makes them more selective the following year, and attracts even more kids. Which, in turn, means that minute differences and membership in sub-categories, makes a bigger difference than it would have before the USNews rankings.</p>
<p>A definate cycle.
IB</p>
<p>Shad: Good luck on your schools. Yep...it will be very interesting (I've only heard from my safeties as well). As for the debate, I was a bit worried that I sounded like a d....k. Hard to know how you're taken on CC sometimes.</p>
<p>Grad: I don't think any of us can say we're not frustrated with the current system. And it's frustrating when schools don't help. Good luck on your colleges as well. :)</p>
<p>Thanks, and same to you guys. :)</p>
<p>My computer is being insane...probably the CC website.</p>
<p>same with me...I think it is the site...</p>
<p>Unfortunately, affirmative action does lead to racism, but I think that criticism is justifiable at times. I'm a URM and I can say that I have not once benefited from affirmative action, because I worked to be at the top of my class, and though my SAT score is mediocre (for this website), at least it's good
(far above average) ('great' according to most). My friend, however, who is Trinidadian and male, benefited greatly. With a 1400 on the new SAT and a 79 average, he was wait listed at Gettysburg. I realize that's not an acceptance, but still -- how does he get wait listed? I don't know. Times of admission always lead to questions about affirmative action. Is affirmative action really supposed to benefit a weak applicant? He's not poor either -- he's middle class (and constantly insulting less fortunate classmates), so that's another thing I can't understand. Oh well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with you guys in that different perspectives certainly enhance a campus environment.</p>
<p>I dunno. I'm conflicted. Different perspectives are always good, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between different perspectives and better qualifications. It just irks me that at some places URM status and certain SAT scores seem to merit rubber-stamp acceptance whereas an overrepresented student with the same scores is fighting for a shot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is definately really unfair, when certain ethnic groups get favor. It's just demographics I guess, it's obvious there'd be a shortage of minorities if admissions standards for them were completely unbiased. Perhaps seeking to further increase the number of qualified minorities could help curb the need for AA?</p>
<p>Yes, better prepared URMs would curb some reliance on AA. But, that would mean dealing with internal and external structural problems already entrenched in our country's social fabric. For instance, inequitable funding for public education, and over reliance on tests like the SAT, unfair housing practices, etc.... The middle one is hard for me to say because I did well on them--which gives me a boost at the colleges I'm looking at (i.e. about the 75%-ile).</p>
<p>totally agree on the economic aa.</p>
<p>That happens sometimes already. I have non-URM friends that have gotten amazing aid packages, and even free rides. They did, however, apply to colleges that guarenteed to meet need, and few if any that gave out merit aid. Needles to say, those that applied to the schools that gave out the latter got only some merit aid, but the school still gapped them.</p>
<p>As for URM friends, the same is true. The ones that applied to schools that gave out merit-aid (and are need-aware) were often gapped, while the colleges that guarenteed to meet need met their college costs fully.</p>
<p>So, the AA debate is very interesting.
IB</p>
<p>I have a problem with people assuming that URMs accepted with possible benefit of AA are "underqualified." What do we mean when we say that someone is qualified to enter Harvard? Does it mean their test scores are really good? If so, how would you explain the people with perfect 2400s on the SATs getting rejected? GPA? Plenty of 4.0/4.0's get rejected from Harvard. Extracurriculur activities? Who's to say that one person's ECs are "better" than another's? The essay? Essays (aside from basic grammar) are probably the most subjective part of the application.</p>
<p>I definitely think people unfairly point only towards race when discussing AA or related issues in college admissions. I do not agree when people say that athletes, legacies, etc bring more "tangible" benefits to the college than URMs. If anything, the benefit gained from admitting these students is as "intangible" as it is when admitting URMs, who add to the diversity and inclusiveness of the institution.</p>
<p>Lewis:</p>
<p>That's the danger of standardized tests and norms. Who defines the norms and standards are those with the power to do something about the situation. Unfortunately, non-URMs sometime prefer "standards" or "norming" because it can benefit their cause--especially in college admissions.</p>
<p>I think the biggest problem now is that because admissions are often need-blind, the colleges then cannot tell the difference between a URM who's parents are doctors and could afford a tutor, and a URM who grew up attending a city school.
I'm not saying we should only rely on academics and EC's, because we definitely need to take into account one's access to a better education. But with race AA, we are INCREASING racism and INCREASING stereotypes-because the colleges are "assuming" that blacks and hispanics are naturally poorer than everyone else. If they actually look at a person's economic status, then they can be much more certain how accessible a tutor is. </p>
<p>Another argument:
Racism is bad, yes? I think we all agree it is.
Racism is defined as the treatment of individuals differently based on race, yes?
So, the best way to avoid racism is to not treat individuals differently based on race, yes?
To treat individuals the SAME, racially speaking, the only way is to NOT ask them their race, yes?</p>
<p>There is proven differences in SAT performance and overall academic development based on economic differences. That's an easy one. If you have more money, you have more money to spend on a tutor.
BUT, there IS not a relationship between RACE and Intelligence. To say that there is a relationship is like saying blacks are naturally less intelligent than whites.</p>
<p>using racism to stem racism is a very very bad idea. affirmative action, no matter what anyone says on the board, has overall been innefective in helping the african american community. using economic affirmative action however, makes significantly more sense. individuals with economic hardship, in my opinion deserve consideration. But simply using the race card has been tried and has failed, and furthermore it has backfired in creating even more racism, especially on college campuses in america, where racism should be around the nations lowest level and dropping, not on the rise. Its time to try something new, and economic affirmative action is the fairest way for those who are disadvantaged, no matter what race or ethnicity they are, to get a fair shot in life. Obviously, the majority of people who would benefit from economic affirmative action would still be minorities, but it would level the playing field by awarding economic affirmative action to those who truly deserve it, no matter what race, and at the same time would take a step towards eliminating racism in america and on college campuses throughout america.</p>
<p>btw I agree that legacy and athletic preferences are unfair. Talent though.. I think talent CAN be a benefit. We aren't talking something you see on Ripley's Believe it or Not, we're talking about musical ability, dancing ability, something a person has devoted a LOT of time to, that will impact their education in a positive light.</p>
<p>"I have a problem with people assuming that URMs accepted with possible benefit of AA are "underqualified." "</p>
<p>well step out of the idealist bubble and look at things not theoreticaly, but realisticly. unfortunantly, URM's often are underqualified, statistically that is. one can always make the argument that life experiences and hardships do to race and such make up for that. but the statistical differences between non-ethnic minorities with hardships and URM's is still quite large. That is simply racism at its fullest. american must once and for all eliminate racism in education, just as it is illegal in other governmental areas. I must include the other side of the coin as well, as i feel strongly in its regards as well. More funding must be put into lower income area elementary, jr high and high schools. They are grossly underfunded, which, since lower income areas in cities are vastly URM's, is a form of racism and suppresion against them as well. In america today, we are attempting to solve the education crisis from the top down, instead of the bottom up. That is the problem. and the first step towards solving the problem is to create equality in lower education and eliminate inequality in upper education. Right now both parties are being harmed, one in lower education and the other in upper education. It makes more sense just to level the playing field overall in both areas, the results from this might surprise a great many liberals and conservatives alike.</p>
<p>Right. So if you fix the problems inherent in the primary and secondary schools, you can phase out AA as it is currently.</p>
<p>If you do it in reverse, that would mean a generation of URMs would be affected in a negative way.</p>