<p>Only Southeast Asians get a bump from their status because they are underrepresented. Again, it depends on how you define Asians. For those against AA, Asians includes Chinese, Japanese and Koreans....which tend to be affluent, while other subgroups tend to be less so. I'm surprised that you assume adcoms would not know the difference, especially since many of the adcoms make the distinction, or at least say they do.</p>
<p>I'm part-japanese and do not expect to recieve an admissions bump. I'd prefer that it go to those that have been historically oppressed (and I'm not saying that japanese kids have not been discriminated agains).</p>
<p>URM status...I think that adcoms are savy enough to use their intelligence to make certain decisions. I could be wrong, but they do tend to be enlightened. It's just interesting that other subgroups, like special talents, athletes, legacies, developmental candidates, geographically diverse kids, etc...are rarely addressed. I suppose it is because non-URMs benefit by those as well.</p>
<p>Race is used because it is an obvious characteristc, which remains whether a URM is wealth or poor. Non-URMs, aside from subtle cues, like dress or manners of speech, can blend. URMs, not so much, except for certain asian groups.</p>
<p>A lot of the admissions process is reverse-racism to a certain extent. It gets really annoying when qualified people are denied entrance into top colleges simply because others were selected because of their race. Not always the case, but does happen a lot.</p>
<p>And it gets really annoying when affluent non-URMs, which make up about the same percentage of minorities at most college got a bump because they are a legacy (remember that college until the 1970's was the perview of the affluent male). Likewise with developmental admits, who are predominently non-URM and wealthy.</p>
<p>BTW, it cannot be racism (reverse) by definition because URMs would need the power to be able to reject non-URMs. And, yet again, qualified is a subjective term. Colleges admit those they think can do the work, dispite what you may think. Just because in someones eyes the standardized tests seem to indicate ability, does not mean that it is objective (hence the PR/Kaplan cottage industry).</p>
<p>I'm getting a bit tired of middle class non-URM who think they are better qualified because of their skin tone and intrageneration advantages throughout much of American history.</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>PS--It does not happen a lot. Look at the percentage on campus. Last time I checked, the majority were still non-URM. You're more likely to lose a spot to another non-URM than a URM. And, women are more likely to lose a spot to a guy.</p>
<p>I'd like to reiterate the fact that I do NOT support the various other forms of annoying admittance advantages (legacy status, geographical location, etc.) just as much as I am against AA.
But I would also like to mention that AA is often taken advantage of by people who rightfully are NOT disadvantaged. for example, I have a friend who defines himself as hispanic with colleges even though he is white, he's parents are white, and has never been subject do anti-hispanic racism (because everyone assumes he is white). He says he is fourth generation Cuban or something. And legally, he can take advantage of affirmative action. But does he really deserve an advantage for the social problems that others are facing? Another example is I have a friend whose mother was born in South America (even though both her parents are English). When she grew up she moved to America. Now her son is qualified for "AA" even though he doesn't have a drop of real Hispanic blood in him.
Also, I'd like to reiterate the fact that I am supportive of economic AA because it truly supports those who have really had advantages, not those who haven't encountered real disadvantages but have desperately grabbed at loopholes they can get through AA.</p>
<p>Dan you are talking about flaws in the system as to who really qualifies to AA, not whether or not it is needed. AA was in its essence was made to provide a a collegiate education for people who, historically were excluded from such education. Until we see any type of correlation between the amount of minorities in colleges to that of the country. It is very valid to think that a system at least partially based on race is needed. And for those that want to use the "rich black kid" example, for every one rich black kid that needs the extra help from AA, there are MANY more who are underprivliged and do need that extra consideration.</p>
<p>but the rich black kid is the one who ends up applying for these colleges and getting the advantage because the underpriviliged black kid is too concerned with trying to survive and get food on the table to worry about getting into Princeton...</p>
<p>But that doesnt change the fact that minorities are really being underrepresented. I think the ivies are realizing that the amount of rich minorites are surpassing what they would want, thats why they are changing their policies for poorer kids in attempts to get more URMs. But in reality there are still many kids who need the benefits that AA extends to them. There is a problem with the education system as a whole and instead of attacking AA, people need to worry about the other things that are going on in schools</p>
<p>Well I am white, middle class, no legacy anywhere (except university of northern iowa, haha) no athletic stardom, no amazing talent..
But I am against racism and AA. So how does that go with your argument that most of the people who are against AA are non-URM, but who have other things like legacy to get them in?</p>
<p>Absolutely! It's like saying OH YOU'RE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOUR RACE SO THAT'S WHY OUR INSTITUTION WILL ACCEPT YOU. AA is a horrible practice since it's based on race. Now were it based on a financial level, it would be awesome since it will serve the needy.</p>
<p>"Dan you are talking about flaws in the system as to who really qualifies to AA, not whether or not it is needed."</p>
<p>YES! I am talking about flaws in the system and AA is needed. But the only effective ways to get rid of these flaws is to make AA based on economics, not race.</p>
<p>just a message of support for those opposing AA on this board. I also had a bad run in with a friend of mine whose mother was Brazilian but who was a white bred as the rest of us. To make a long story short, he had never done engineering before, just told me "he liked the idea", lol, but he got into Upenn, stanford, and Olin(where he is going) because of his race over many other qualified applicants who had engineering experience and were sure they wanted to make it their career. My view on the whole issue is that there are so many things that give you the extra boost that if you don't have one of them:Legacy, URM, geographic location, first person to go to college, etc. you have to be absoluteley spectacular to have a chance. Admissions people love to tell you that they could fill their class up ten times over with qualified people, and that legacies and URM only come into play when everything else is equal. But if 10 people are equal, who gets in everytime? URM's and legacies. I think it has also backfired. I used to view the private colleges as full of extremeley smart people who really deserved to be there. I have now lost some respect as I see the type of kids from my class who are accepted. And the arguement above about how people who are against AA are non-URM but who have other things like legacy to get them in is just not true. All the people who benefit from these extra little boosts really couldn't care less. Its the ones who get left behind that end up really resenting the people who got in.</p>
<p>you never know, your right, he could have had an absolutely spectacular essay, or something I didn't know about. But it's a general trend, he isn't the only one. I have another friend who had mediocre qualifications and was a black girl and therefore got into MIT. Private schools all claim to have no quotas, a claim I find to be complete ********. Comparing UC Berkeley and Stanford, you can see the difference (The UC system no longer has AA by state law I think). The population is 4% black, 11% hispanic, and 41% asian, 41% white at berkeley. The minority numbers i just gave are a little off i think but the asian and white numbers are exact from berkeley's website. Compare this with Stanford, which has almost a perfect match with the general population statistics, and definitely is not 41% asian. The only thing we can assume is that Asian's are discriminated against in the process.</p>
<p>When race is taken out of the picture, they make up almost half of a college population (Berkeley). But for some reason at private schools, only a little over a fifth? Discrimination? looks like it to me. Maybe they don't follow the exact census, but the fact of the matter is, there are many more qualified asians than any other race, so they ARE discriminated against. For the record, I'm white, so I'm not making justifications for myself.</p>
<p>Its hard to claim a race is really being discriminated against when their presence at top colleges is usually 400% higher than their presence in the country</p>
<p>Your arguments are narrow minded. You are not looking at this from a broad perspective. College admissions SHOULD be based on who deserves to get in and nothing else. If the admissions of Asians should be 800% percent of their population because they deserve it, but it's only 400%, then that means half of deserving Asians do not get accepted. That is discrimination.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action is a placebo. It exists to perpetuate an illusion that opportunity in America is increasing and that equality is developing. For some reason, a racial group--whether it's social or economic--does not appear to be succeeding with the majority. People therefore give them what they want to make the nation and its institutions appear equitable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>-Me.</p>
<p>Affirmative action doesn't solve anything; it just comforts us. For the most part, it's practiced by pretigious, higher-tier colleges and universities, and the number of URM members it will affect is a very, very, very, very, very, very tiny fraction of the total number of people in each minority group. It does not affect the majority at all, and therefore, in my humble opinion, has brought about very little positive change for the minorities in our country...</p>
<p>You are basically saying the same thing for Asians as is said for whites in regards to the effects of AA. The same old "Because blacks/hispanics are getting in with their lower grades and we arent it is discrimination" That makes your argument trite.</p>