<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree wellesley supporter...all of that crap isn't fair...all of those kids who get in for random reasons over others are just as frustrating. but if the hook is your race, it becomes a hot topic because some might think of it as racist (accepting an applicant because of their ethnicity) whereas the other reasons are just plain unfair.</p>
<p>Actually, it's only considered racist (by some non-URMs, and certain asian ethnicities) because those who are non-URM (and the like) do not benefit, while they do benefit from the other programs.</p>
<p>Again, it is usually non-URMs that use race, because you can say it is morally suspect and ostensibly be cast as a savior of sorts. The problem is that the social and cultural norms that have been in place for a few hundered years is what created some of the disparity in the first place. That is, before the sixties and early seventies, minorities were often viewed as inferior, while today, during college admissions, URMs are seen as taking away spots that "rightfully" belong to non-URMs. How much have things changed when a non-URM believes that, according to stats (defined by those in power), that URMs are sometimes seen as not qualified or underqualified for admissions?</p>
<p>Last time I checked, those in positions of power were still primarily non-URMs. If you want to talk about unfair, start with primary or secondary schools, cost of health care, borrowing power, etc...and how that affects URM. Start to focus and correct those issues, and performance should rise, and AA can being to be phased out.</p>
<p>IB.</p>
<p>nailed it one the head- good stuff. If people want to start talking about racism then why dont we start talking about minorities and their racial relations in regards to jobs or the law or financial situations or the schools where many minorities are forced to go to. Lets not talk about the only time whites can plausibly claim they are being done an injustice and make a such a huge deal over something that is not nearly as prevalent or large-scale as people want to make it out to be. There are many other pressing racial issues that are really affecting peoples futures for whatever reasons. Fix schools, neighborhoods, and maybe then we can talk about a level playing field</p>
<p>I agree that positions of power are usually filled by non-URMs and it is one of the most blatant forms of injustice in our country. I also agree with you when you say that "The problem is that the social and cultural norms that have been in place for a few hundered years is what created some of the disparity in the first place." And there are blatant forms of racism that exists today--the factors you listed are only a few. But I don't think the solution is considering someone's race a factor in admissions. Sure, plenty of white people (sorry if I neglected to use the more PC term--"non-URM") get perks handed to them throughout life. As a "non-URM" myself, I admit that I will never know what it is like to face the difficulties of racism. But we can't solve centuries of racism by giving minorities preferential treatment to URMS when it comes to college. </p>
<p>Even when URMs are accepted to universities through the help of affirmative action, they are very often detached from their URM communities. Many of the URMs live in white communities, attend prestigious schools, and maintain the same living standards as any other privelaged white person. But if this person happens to have one great-grandfather who immigrated from cuba, he can mark off that "hispanic" bubble on applications, giving him instant URM status. Now, you can't tell me that after attending a prestigous school, this man will return to largely minority urban areas and solve the problems of racism in primary or secondary schools, health care, etc...No, he will return the the upper-class white community he was raised in. A URM of this profile would be more likely to apply to harvard than a poor minority of urban America.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, true representatives of opressed URM communities seldom even APPLY to top schools, simply because of the restraints placed on their communities by centuries of racism. Since URMs have been barred from equal education to whites for centuries, their communities simply don't place the same importance on education that the dominant white society has. People who have spent their lifetime facing unequal opportunity are more worried about getting food on the table then getting their son or daughter into Princeton. The solution isn't giving preferential treatment to those few URMs who apply, but rather solve problems of racism such as unequal wages, housing discrimination, primary and secondary schooling problems, etc. so that URMs can build their way up and gain an interest to apply for these schools at the same level as whites.</p>
<p>Now, I never said that spots taken by URMs "belong" to non-URMs. Most recipients are equally qualified. But the final decision that distinguishes two qualified applicants--one white, one URM--between accepted and waitlisted is often URM status. And, by the way, I have several URM friends who don't support AA, hating the fact that many people think they only get into schools because of their minority status.</p>
<p>This year there seems to be a backlash against young women (who are being waitlisted or rejected) at a number of LACs because there is a shortage of men.</p>
<p>In a NY Times Editorial, Jennifer Delahunty Britz, dean of admissions and financial aid at Kenyon College wrote:</p>
<p>*Last week, the 10 officers at my college sat around a table, 12 hours every day, deliberating the applications of hundreds of talented young men and women. While gulping down coffee and poring over statistics, we heard about a young woman from Kentucky we were not yet ready to admit outright. She was the leader/president/editor/captain/lead actress in every activity in her school. She had taken six advanced placement courses and had been selected for a prestigious state leadership program. In her free time, this whirlwind of achievement had accumulated more than 300 hours of community service in four different organizations. </p>
<p>Few of us sitting around the table were as talented and as directed at age 17 as this young woman. Unfortunately, her test scores and grade point average placed her in the middle of our pool. We had to have a debate before we decided to swallow the middling scores and write "admit" next to her name.</p>
<p>Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they're more valued applicants. Today, two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants, and more than 56 percent of undergraduates nationwide are women. Demographers predict that by 2009, only 42 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in the United States will be given to men. </p>
<p>We have told today's young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today's most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men.
*</p>
<p>So fella's, as you receive the rest of the admissions decisions this week think about this, how many of you benefitting from affirmative action because it is likely that some of you will have knocked a young woman with "better grades and stats" out of the box so that you could get your admissions on the basis of your gender?</p>
<p>sybbie makes a good point...it wouldn't be fair for a guy to take a girls place, especially considering guys have definitely not have worse discrimation against them than girls. This prove that colleges aren't out to "right past wrongs" of racism, but just to give themselves a "diverse population." One point the article fails to make, however, is the variation among majors and areas of interest. For instance, females have a much higher chance of getting into a school like MIT because most of their applicants are males. Also, a female applying to become an engineer would be promising to any top school because most of their engineering students are male. The opposite, however, goes for the arts, where male applicants are given the advantage. Overall, I think the entire process has too much to do with who you are rather than what you do...</p>
<p>I'm a Hispanic female from NYC and not completely against AA. There are good, valid arguments for both sides, but one thing I think is bs is when people say that AA just increases racisms. I really doubt AA can increase racism. It may increase peoples resentment towards URMs, but it cant increase racism. Youre either racist or youre not.
Having said that, I think that this country is marred by years of discrimination and AA is one of the only things these people can think of to make up for it. I honestly do believe that if it werent for AA colleges would not be at all diverse, because the truth is that most minorities don't do as well in school and aptitude tests as white Americans. As a culture (while here in America), many minorities dont consider education to be that important. Some parents don't have big hopes and dreams for their children. They just want them to have a better life, which usually isnt hard to achieve, being that speaking English almost guarantees that. I can really only speak for Hispanics because thats what I know about, but working with (mostly Hispanic) children in a school, I can say that there is definitely a lack of drive. Most of their parents, who immigrated to this country, are uneducated and dont know anything about this countrys school system. They cant push their kids to do well in school, and these children will go on to JHS and HS and then, after seeing enough of the way society is, maybe figure out that school is in fact important. By then, it will almost be too late. They may work just as hard as the next person, but will never be as good (academically) as a white American whose first language is English and who has been working his/her entire life to get into a good college. This is of course not true of all Hispanics, it isnt true of my parents/upbringing, but I can say that my parents dont know the difference between City College and Harvard. A college is a college to them. They dont get how everything works. Ive had to, slowly but surely, figure everything out for myself. It was difficult for me even though Ive always done well in school, now I can only imagine how much harder and frustrating it is for those who start caring too late, when it really isnt their fault. We only know what we are taught, until we are old enough to make our own observations, and draw our own, rational conclusions. So anyway, my point is that, discrimination and even financial status aside, many minorities have a disadvantage in that sense, so i dont think that AA based on race is completely unfair.
Bust I think that AA should definitely be based on economic status as well. Not having the same opportunities as others has a lot to do with not being as well off financially. So if standards are lowered for minorities, they should also be lowered for anyone whos family is poor. But then again, colleges will not want to admit a bunch of people they know will not be able to pay tuition. And I think that when colleges admit minorities, they expect to give these students financial aid because (not to make a generalization but) most minorities do need financial help.
But I also think that its unfair that people who are like 3rd generation Americans, as DanJH mentioned, can check of Hispanic for example just because they have a Spanish last name, when in reality they have not had to put up with many of the woes that come along with being a minority. I think it just goes back to this country wanting to make up for centuries of racism and discrimination
AA is kind of twisted and definitely has its flaws, but I do think that if it werent for it, our colleges would be much less diverse. Im positive, though, that if I werent benefiting from it, I would be very much against it, so I don't blame those of you who are. I just don't like hearing/reading that minorities have to get over themselves and that AA based on race is entirely unjustified because being poor is just as bad, if not worse and so on. But trust me, when it comes to opportunities, education, etc. being poor and a minority has to be worse than being a poor white American.</p>
<p>wow i wrote an essay sorry :)</p>
<p>If AA could help me get into my dream college, I wouldn't care.</p>
<p>I totally agree with br9172, it's true that many minorities lack the lack of drive for education that many whites have, which is not their fault. It is the result of a disadvantaged upbringing an centuries of racism which, I'm sorry to say, continues to a lesser degree today. But what should change is these people's perception of education, not the standards for getting into school. URMs should be encouraged to work hard and apply to top colleges, but not be subject to different standards once they do. I know several URMs like br9172 who don't support AA as a principle--some who even claim not to mark off the race bubble on applications. I must say that just like jessy09, even if I don't believe in AA, I would take advantage of the oppurtunity.</p>
<p>^^ Good post.</p>
<p>the argument that affirmative action is wrong because some minority students are really rich, and thus not disadvantaged, suffers from an obvious and unfortunate flaw: most African-Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately much poorer than whites and Asians. No college admissions officer is dumb enough to confuse a truly disadvantaged kid from the South Bronx with a truly advantaged kid from South Beach. Just looking at the zip codes is a pretty big hint.</p>
<p>ya but unfortuantly they still use race, even with economic factors are present. likely, a poor white kid from the ghetto whose parents make 15-20 grand a year would loose an admission spot to wealthier minority students on the ground that the university needs more diversity (clearly racial diversity). if your claim was accurate, to many individuals would fall through the cracks of the system.</p>
<p>and i agree with danjh1202, although i feel aa (racial aa) is wrong, i would also take advantage of it if i was allowed to. my beef is not with those who take advantage of it, its for those who allow it to be used.</p>
<p>"I'm a Hispanic female from NYC and not completely against AA. There are good, valid arguments for both sides, but one thing I think is bs is when people say that AA just increases racisms. I really doubt AA can increase racism. It may increase peoples resentment towards URMs, but it cant increase racism. Youre either racist or youre not."</p>
<p>-so your saying people are born racist?.. specifics, actions, and observations cant lead to someone becoming racist? i couldnt disagree more.</p>
<p>I used to get all riled up in these conversations. But white people just seem to love to rag on AA because they think its the new millenium so obviously no one is biased, prejudiced, or racist. That is not case.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action wasnt created for a short term solution. AA was created to rebalance the society in which blacks were descriminated in the workforce AND IN HOUSING. I think it is extremely ignorant to generalize blacks as not "possessing the drive" What the **** is gonna drive you when you see everyone you know working at the local McDonalds and WalMarts because they couldnt make it out. And I'm not saying that minorities are not to blame whatsoever, but had you known(or your kids) known that 8% of their actual graduating class was going to go to college...and maybe >1% would leave the state for college what drive do you have there? </p>
<p>I'm not saying the URM are not to blame in the situation we have now, but you all simply don't understand what it is your are fighting against. What was the United States supposed to do after it's own legislators promoted segregation, racism, and even murder? Was it just supposed to send off the wounded dog and say, "well its not legal to murder you anymore, good day" No the United States(or atleast some people) is working to fix the atrocity known as the 20th century. NOTHING IS GOING TO BE PERFECT, no one was going to create a perfect system, but this is the best we have.</p>
<p>For all you kids out there saying "I had better stats than Susie but she got in wah wah" colleges arent so black and white. They are looking for a rounded student body. They aren't looking for a bunch of [rich] white kids who have been tutored for the past 10 years to walk their campus. Society needs to evolve and grow, in the case of AA, society is growing by forcing URM into college. By doing so. one day when you all look down your street, you don't see the one latin lady just cleaning your neighbors house. You see all races, and you live with them, and communicate with them. Thats why I say its not a short-term program, it probably wont yield sufficient results(assuming some form of it survives) until your kids grand-kids. </p>
<p>I haven't read anything past the first page, so theres my automatic response.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>sighing @ generalizations</em></p>
<p>"it's true that many minorities lack the lack of drive for education that many whites have"</p>
<p>Is anybody interested in talking about the URMs who are accepted into colleges, thrive and excel while there, and graduate?? If a URM is accepted by a certain institution and graduates on par with his/her peers, why should the matter of AA even be contested?? If they can make it through those four years, they belong at that school, and have just as much right to be there as anybody else..</p>
<p>And why do SOME people (this is not directed to the person I quoted) feel the need to target minorities that are accepted to certain institutions?? If you didn't get accepted to where you wanted to go, blame the AdCom, don't act out your resentment on URM acceptees.</p>
<p>Open your eyes, people. It honestly humors me to read such post as, "My stats were just as good as Black Bobby, but he got in and I didn't because he was an URM"... Look at the statistics. None of you are dumb. The percentage of affluent african americans, hispanics, and native americans combined is undoubtedly significantly lower in comparison to their white counterparts. You guys place your argument on the backs of a few affluent URM. Well answer me this...How do you think they got that way. I can assure AA played it's part. Yes, slowly but surely we are becoming equal and AA won't be needed, but we aren't there yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but alot of adcoms don't care that much whether their minority is from the SOuth Bronx or from South BEach. Either candidate can raise their little minority percentage statistic up by a point. This means that even that 1/8 hispanic kid who grew up in the hamptons still has a significant advantage in college admissions. And even though most African-Americans and Hispanics are statistically poorer than asians and whites, to ASSUME that one is poor BECAUSE they are a URM would be racist. Therefore, an economic approach to AA would be more fair.</p>
<p>being a native hasnt helped me at all. Accepted at 2 denied at 6 waitlisted at 3, waiting for one. My brother got a scholarship to w & l for being 1/8th native without need.</p>