<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Usually on the first page of the application, especially the common app, it asks about your parents education and occupation so the school does indeed know</p>
<p>its supposedly been phasing out for the past 20 years, seems to be taking a while.</p>
<p>the elementary jr high and high school students in inner-cities have been affected for countless years. Yet they keep being fed "just wait", instead of using vouchers to help get their kids out of the crappy local public school system, and help them garner an equal education with the middle and upper class. what and where has all that waiting gotten them. nothing, and no where, just generations of kids who have been cheated out of an opportunity for equality that they had been promised.</p>
<p>For all those people who bash at AA, get facts that show that minorities are getting in to schools with substantially lower grades then you have a valid point. I think just for the sake of argument many whites are pointing at affirmativa action as being an injustice that is being done to them. There are NO laws that say a school has to have a certain amount of minorities and it is now illegal to give a student a numerical advantage just because they are a minority. Many schools dont even care about your racial status. The best a minority can get from schools in the admission process is "consideration." Please come with hard facts that support claims that arent true. Despite what people are saying, it is harder for a person of color to succeed. And people who are overrepresented at colleges want to complain about? Work hard and dont blame your shortcomings on something you cant prove.</p>
<p>I dont care how lofty your views are - if you or your child gets rejected from their top choice school when a classmate who has lower EVERYTHING (grades, scores, ECs, etc etc) yet is a minority gets accepted - you're going to feel bitterness at the very least.</p>
<p>it is only illegal in california to use affirmative action, and thats only for publics such as uc's. it is not illegal in the entire country. what are you talking about? and there have been countless articles in numerous newspapers how schools such as ucla ucsd and uc berkeley have ways of getting around the law. look the articles up. furthermore it is only illegal in california do to the voters voting for its illegality to be enforced by law. yet top uc's are still attempting to find ways around the law.</p>
<p>"The best a minority can get from schools in the admission process is consideration."</p>
<p>-What planet r u living on. That is entirely not true. affirmative actions is used openly in many institutions throughout the country. You must just be thinking of just california public schools.</p>
<p>"For all those people who bash at AA, get facts that show that minorities are getting in to schools with substantially lower grades then you have a valid point. "</p>
<p>-i will find u stats proving you are incorrect. how could u claim such a thing?</p>
<p>"Despite what people are saying, it is harder for a person of color to succeed."</p>
<p>-that is the broadest statement i have ever heard. a black upper class kid in newport beach who goes to a private high school has it harder than a white kid in the inner city who attends a low quality public high school whose parents make 20 grand a year? of course not. The black kid would surely have specific difficulties (such as forms of racism and racial discrimination that are sadly still part of everyday life for many minorities) that the white kid would not have to deal with, however the white kids life overall would still likely be more difficult. you cannot make broad racial stereo types like that. Broad racial stereotypes are one of the root causes of racism in themselves.</p>
<p>I think his statement assumes similar circumstances. Of course anyone living below the poverty line is going to face more difficulty than most living above it, regardless of social pressures.</p>
<p>yes that backs up my point that affirmative action should be race blind, and economically focused. those who need help, and have had it more economically difficult would recieve the help. this would still clearly help mostly minorities and most of the same people who would have benefitted from racially based aa. yet it would also help non-urm's who deserve the help as well, and would help move america away from using race as a condition of selection. im all for helping those who need help and giving extra consideration to those who deserve extra consideration do to harships they faced, just not entirely in the name of race. the very idea seems outdated. racism is racism pure and simple. in the case of current afirmative action, it is simply politically correct racism.</p>
<p>--Ok i posted this a while ago but decided to post it again to give you my prospective.</p>
<p>I myself am a low income Alaskan Native living in a rural area of Alaska. The way i have grown up and looked at the world is much different then yours. My race and culture is so much different then yours. Alaskan Natives and Native Americans in generally are not really "self focused", We have been raised to do what is good for the community not ourselves. The way school is taught is difficult for many Native Americans. Everything is taught in a way that we are not comfortable in. I myself have never felt like screaming out a answer even if i knew it. I do not like the fact that we do everything independently and compete for highest grade etc. This is one of the reasons that i think Native Americans are at such a high rate of dropping out. Completing school is so hard because it conflicts with our culture.</p>
<p>Another huge reason that i believe that AA is needed is because if you look at the location of where the majority of minorities are at. Look at many of the villages that Alaskan Natives are born into, reservations that Native Americans are born into, inner cities that many blacks and Hispanics are born into, what kind of education do you think they receive? How many good teachers are going to want to live in a small Alaskan village, reservation, or inner city when they could find a much better job?</p>
<p>You can argue that whites live there to but you need to look at the picture as a whole. I know on the top of my head that about 27% of Native Americans live in poverty compared to about 11% whites. Excuse me but that is sick. There should be no reason that this is happening but it is. I feel that the educational system in the United States has failed these minorities (including the poor). Education is the only way out of poverty yet we continue to put the worst schools in the areas that need the best.</p>
<p>I can tell you growing up I had no one there to support me, no one to tell me to keep going through the rough times. I didnt have anyone to look up to, no hero, no source of inspiration and I fear that is the case with many minorities. My mother never even entered high school and no one really cared when my brother dropped out. I know most of your parents would throw a fit if you even considered dropping out but this happens all the time in my area. When a race has been systematically repressed for so many generations you cannot expect them to jump up compete at the same level. I believe that Lyndon Johnson summed it up nicely-</p>
<p>"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunitynot just legal equity but human abilitynot just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."</p>
<p>Sorry about the long post and many mistakes that are in it. Did not proof read it and wrote it quite fast. I just feel that you guys have never heard the other side of the story. You all have stories about the one or two Black or Hispanics at your school but you never consider the hundreds of others that do not have the same opportunities as you.</p>
<p>It's obvious that education has not historically been a "strong suit" for many minority groups. This is not to say that these groups are in any way not as smart as non-minorities. Science proves that all races have equal brain-power. What it does show, however, is that historically, certain minority communities have downplayed the importance of education. Again, not at the fault of said minorities--whites ruthlessly suppressed minority groups from receiving education for years, and once they did, failed to give them anywhere near equal educational standards. Minorities were too busy working to make a living and survive then to focus on getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>This having been said, in my opinion, the problem of poor percentages of minorities in top colleges IS the result of centuries of oppression and racism. But is the answer to the problem giving people brownie points based only on the color of their skin? Giving some upper class high schooler an admittance to Yale simply because his great-grandfather was named Garcia? In my opinion, the answer is an obvious "no." Society should strive for EQUAL standards in education. This means that the urban city school with mostly minorities should strive to get the same oppurtunities that elitist white school in the hamptons has. I know that the U.S. is no where near this point. If that kid from the urban school claws his way to the top and applies to a great school, his overcoming of adversity should be considered in his application. But that doesn't mean giving him points because he's black. That means giving him points because he went to a poor urban school.</p>
<p>And another point: Schools say that they employ affirmative action to make up for difficulties in the applicant's life so they can level the playing field. The way I see it, this is a lie. Colleges admit more minorities to brag about their "commitment to diversity." They want to boost that percentage from 10% up to 15%. This also means that at a school with 30% african americans and 2% native americans, a native american applicant has a better chance of getting in than an african american one. Now I don't see how anyone can argue that the native american applicant was admitted because he had more problems with racism during his life than the african american applicant.</p>
<p>Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope I didn't offend anyone.</p>
<p>i agree with danjh1202 100%. well put.</p>
<p>A system that employs both economic and race factors in admission would be more effective than the current one. For example, positive consideration could be given for an URM status. Economic background could be scaled to provide benefit to those who need it. The ratio between the two considerations could be adjusted over time to phase out race-based classifications.</p>
<p>The problem with point-based systems is that the Supreme Court already deemed them unconstitutional for public universities. (Umich case) However, there are less standardized methods for accomplishing a diverse learning enviroment.</p>
<p>Ideally, I would like a system of say 75% economic 25% race. The person raised on welfare in the inner-city would get more preferential treatment than the wealthy minority regardless of his or her race.</p>
<p>If any of you remember the Supreme Court case with the Univeristy of Michigan, then you will know that it was ruled UNCONSTITTIONAL to give a points advantage to anybody based on their race. However they did say that race can be considered in admissions so that a school can create a diverse community. UCCHRIS prove that is wrong, you cant. I am poorer and black and I would like to think I got accepted to the schools that I did because of my credentials even though I have had it hard. ANd people such as many of you will just say "You got in with AA" However, there is a need for more minorities to be enrolled in top colleges. No top schools have a % of blacks that is more than 15 and MUCH less than that for hispanics. Why is it that people automatically assume that a minority who is benefitted by AA is one who is in no way qualified for a school? Each year colleges get many great applications from all types of people. And I refuse to believe that they get such few qualified applications from minorities that they would have to lower their standards to unseen levels just to admit them. The amount of rich blacks pale in comparison to that of those who are poor or near that group. By the way look up admission factors at almost any school race is Considered</p>
<p>AA wouldnt be needed if everyone was on a level playing field, but until that is done a system such as AA (if it really works) would be needed to ensure that at least there is one in college. I am the only black person in my advanced classes, and my school is for the most part minorities, whites account for 30% If you look at these ratios it seems as though it is a system. My counselors and even my teachers felt I couldnt succeed in an advanced class, was it simply because I was black? I'd hope not but in the back of my mind I have to think it is because my grades in my history classes were A's. But it is undeniable that minorities, especially blacks have had it harder in terms of succeeding among their white counterparts for other reasons than their raw capabilities. This of course is my experience. A black student at my school in an IB class is taboo, while a white or asian is expected to attend it. There are over 80% white/asians in advanced classes. My high school assumes that no black/hispanic kids are capable to take these classes or that they lack the commitment to do so. And when they do try they are deterred by constant questioning from teachers and counselors and other forms that they need JUST so they can take a class. If this isnt racism-what is? It isthings like that which need policy. Kids adhere to the status quo (ORM in advanced classes/URM in regular classes) and underachieve and are prejudiced against if the break that unspoken rule.</p>
<p>BTW I do support a system like that of which mariner is talking about as far as admissions, more emphasis does need to be placed on those who are poore. (I am both so I know). But instead I would make it 65-35</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have also heard stories of rich white kids with 3.3 GPAs and SATs scores of 1100 (under the old system) getting into Stanford, Duke, and Harvard. In fact, Duke accepts approximately 100 rich white kids with subpar credentials each year under its development program. I also know that students from places like Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc. routinely receive a "preference" for admission to top ranked colleges on the East and West coasts. That is, they are admitted over more highly "qualified" applicants from places like NYC, suburban Washington, D.C., Boston in the name of geographic diversity. So I would not assume that every white kid that gained admission to Harvard, Duke, etc. was more "qualified" than the students that were rejected. </p>
<p>While I can understand the frustration that many rejected students feel, affirmative action should not be used as a scapegoat. They need to realize that no one should feel entitled to be admitted to any college. Top colleges cannot accept all of the students qualified to attend. In fairness to them, these institutions make an effort to admit a diverse class by taking a variety of factors into consideration. </p>
<p>So, please spare me this discussion of fairness and merit. Fairness only seems to bother people when it involves providing minorities with opportunities. </p>
<p>Lastly, I support economic affirmative action. However, I think there needs to be a racial/ethnic element also. A system based purely on economic status would actually reduce the number of minorities admitted because despite conventional wisdom, there are more poor white people than poor Black people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with firebird when he says it's unfair to assume minorities are not qualified for positions. Although I am against AA as it stands, I think that most admitted minorities are qualified for their positions. But the problem is, about 80% of ALL applicants to schools like HYPS are QUALIFIED and DESERVE to get in. It is impossible, however, to let them ALL in so adcoms always refer to a HOOK that gets you in. For minorities, this is very often their URM status. Now these people deserve to get in, but no more than the thousands of white kids that got denied. So what ultimately gave them the edge and got them into the schools was their skin color, which I think is racism. I agree when firebird says many people unfairly get mad at minorities for getting in "just for AA." I can understand, however, why a white applicant who has no "hook" might get frustrated at the admittance of a minority applicant with the same credentials whose only "hook" is the color of his/her skin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why doesn't the white applicant who has no "hook" not get frustrated at the admittance of another white applicant with lower credentials whose only "hook" is the fact the he/she is : (i) from Wyoming, (ii) plays hockey, (iii) parents donated money to the university, or (iv) parents attended the college? I really don't see the difference. Can you tell why so much attention is paid to affirmative action when it is just one of many "hooks" qualified students use to gain admission to top colleges in this country?</p>