<p>BlackRose21, I might be wrong but I have a feeling that he was talking about Jerome Fisher’s School of Management and Technology, which might be the hardest Penn program to be accepted into.</p>
<p>To Black Rose and Beautiful Nerd,</p>
<p>I don’t think a single person on this thread has suggested that anyone is being admitted solely on the basis of being a URM. What is at issue is: Is there a significant advantage provided to URM’s as a result of Affirmative Action? There have been a number of studies on this question and they all seem to suggest that the magnitude of the advantage is roughly equivalent to about 100 points on each section of the SAT. This advantage still exists even in states such as California and Texas that have officially banned race based affirmative action. In the case of these states they have adopted policies, such as admitting the top 10% from all High Schools in Texas, that have the effect of favoring minority students. It can certainly be debated whether affirmative action and other race based policies are fair, or constitutional, or ultimately beneficial to minorities and society. Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue, but there is little debate about the fact that such policies have a material and quantifiable impact on the admissions process. I am frankly amazed that you guys are even arguing about this point.</p>
<p>My main problem with AA is that it breaks people up into race. I mean, how much is your intelligence level really based on your race? To me, I don’t think the two are related at all. A white person, an African American, and an Asian can be equally smart. A white person, an African American, and an Asian can be not so smart. I don’t understand why colleges compare students only to their race,because in the end we are all American. If you are 90th percentile in all of America, but 99th percentile out of Asians, shouldn’t colleges just look at America? I don’t think racism can truly be gone in America until we are all considered equal.
Second, does an URM have less opportunities to succeed than an ORM? To me, it seems like we have equal opportunities - but I may be thinking ideally. ORMs have just as much of a chance of being born into a advantaged family as a URM.
Rather, I think an economic version of affirmative action may be more effective, as poor kids DO have less opportunities to succeed than rich kids. A rich kid who goes to private school, has a tutor, and gets SAT prep has better opprotunites than a poor kid who has to work at Burger King 40 hrs. a week on top of school.</p>
<p>I agree with that as well, but it’s not all about opportunities. Colleges want to physically look diverse so they won’t seem racist and yadda yadda yadda.</p>
<p>clinegirl, one of the main points of AA, is that its based on the demographics that say that Minorities tend to be the majority when it comes to poorer living conditions. Under this assumption it groups together all minorities as a result. As a minority myself I dont think AA is fair, yet Ill still benefit from it. does it make it any less wrong? no. I simply believe that AA is the government’s attempts to make up for a problem that existed previously. So yes it would be more efficient to categorize by financial need rather than race.</p>
<p>I can’t possibly see how anyone can use California as an example. Our universities are 40-70% Asian! That’d be a good argument FOR AA!</p>
<p>ForskakenOne - I agree. AA is a bit unfair, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist at this point in history. In one of my classes, we discussed how maybe we have to go past an “equal” point in order to make up for the past. We may need to give URMs advantages to make up for the disadvantages of the past. Eventually, I hope race will not even be a factor. People are people - no matter race or gender or anything like that.</p>
<p>I think diversity is very important in college, but I don’t think it should be at the expense of qualified students. If a URM is qualified - admit them. If an ORM is qualified - admit them. Simple as that.</p>
<p>curious14</p>
<p>well I was responding to some of the things said in the forum before, not the main topic of this forum. I think over a while some people got dragged into other aspects of affirmative action then the original question provided. But I also think some things needed to be said due to people would bluntly say something or jump all over affirmative action before even knowing some other aspects that make up affirmative action or add to the argument above. and yes some people were saying that they were being admitted due to being an URM. Also I wasn’t staying on one side of affirmative action I was also arguing the other side. For example Capobach was trying to say about what happened at his school. That it is possible that person could of been admitted due to race. But I just got caught up in another conversation about affirmative action. (anyways hope that clears that up) </p>
<p>@ForskakenOne
year I agree with you on that. As a minority myself I would also benefit myself. But I believe whites can get affirmative action too due to the revised rules after the court case. (I believe it was between the U of Mich.)</p>
<p>By the way I’m very surprised on well this forum is going in conversation wise. I’ve been on other forums on this subject and it gets very heated and then ppl start saying things that are kind of out of rage or very stupid without any backup or support. I think it’s been mature except for one post but besides that its been nice talking to you guys about this.</p>
<p>I think private colleges don’t simply exist to “accept the most qualified”, they are the means of moving up in this capitalist society. “Qualified” isn’t simply who worked the hardest in school; they involve a number of pieces to the puzzle. They want people who want to move up the status ladder, not simply go into a field. I mean, we all know that the education system in certain areas are far more flawed. Few kids in certain areas have half the resources people on CC flaunt around. AA helps level the playing field essentially.</p>
<p>yeah that is what I was trying to say before that AA. it helps to level the playing field. I wasn’t trying to get off topic of AA.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is good in one sense- it allows for those that are disadvantaged to get into college. This is good. </p>
<p>However, it does so indirectly by looking at race. This is bad. </p>
<p>A much better policy than using race would be to look at quality of life. A black person in a rich neighborhood should not get any advantage. A white child growing up in poverty should.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, this is NOT true. The number of blacks in poverty vs. the number of whites in poverty is very, very different. I’m not sure about Asians, though, which are technically the ORMs you are talking about.</p>
<p>I think one things students here don’t understand is that, like another poster said, colleges - especially top colleges - don’t exist simply to choose the best academically or extracurricular-ly performing students. Those colleges are shaping a class, for whatever purpose. That’s why 4.0s and 2400s are often enough rejected. It’s not about test scores or even ECs. It can be a whole package. If Affirmative Action gives a student a +300 SAT score chance, well, that makes sense because URMs are, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, going to score lower on the SAT. There are very few (only a couple of thousand) African Americans (I haven’t looked at other groups) with scores in the 700s on one section, let alone multiple. I’m not saying the practice is perfect or ethical - I’m saying that statistically speaking, it makes sense.</p>
<p>I, like some others here, think Affirmative Action should be socioeconomically based and NOT race based. But even if that were the case, most students on CC would feel “disadvantaged” because the advantage would go to lower income students and the middle class always seems to feel jipped. So while changing Affirmative Action could solve the problem of Affirmative Action itself (or help to solve it), it probably would not change the way the un-served populations feel about it.</p>
<p>Actually, this is NOT true. The number of blacks in poverty vs. the number of whites in poverty is very, very different. I’m not sure about Asians, though, which are technically the ORMs you are talking about.</p>
<p>The reason I posted that is because I don’t think it is fair to equate race with economic status. Statistically, what you said is true, but I don’t think we should look at it that way. Like someone above said, *A black person in a rich neighborhood should not get any advantage. A white child growing up in poverty should. *</p>
<p>I agree though - someone will be unhappy even if the system changes.</p>
<p>I think that Affirmative Action is the way it is simply because it is a simple way to attempt to gather diversity. The problem, as many others have discussed, is because socioeconomic diversity is just as if not more important than ethnic diversity.</p>
<p>Just as a tangent, why would anybody declare their race if they were an ORM?</p>
<p>The point of affirmative action isn’t just so a college can post good-looking stats. Most colleges actually want diversity at their school because it benefits the experience of all of the students. Yes, I know it’s true that a lot or even most of the really smart minority students admitted did not grow up in disadvantaged circumstances. But, that does not necessarily mean they grew up disconnected from their culture. Part of the reason schools want to admit more minority students is that they want students with diverse cultural experiences at their school–even if that person did not grow up in poverty. People with different experiences enrich discussions, and can help introduce other students to different ways of life. A lot of selective colleges don’t just look at which race bubble the student filled in but evaluate what they can bring to the school that’s different based on interviews, essays, etc. That kind of stuff is valuable when the school already has thousands of applicants with perfect scores.</p>
<p>@curious14- I wasn’t talking about this SPECIFIC thread, but if you head over to the African American section, they have been harrassed too much. I’ve even dealt with it. People tell me, “Oh you got in b/c you’re black.” They completely disregard all your hard work and everything. It’s not THIS forum, but it’s on CC. There was someone above me that said I hate when URMs with bad scores get in. So if their scores sucked for schools like Harvard and Yale, either they got in off athletics, essays, recs, or race. What do you think most people will suggest? Race and athletics but more so race.</p>
<p>People can suggest race all they want. It doesn’t make any logical since because colleges review holistically, and having “strong” stats doesn’t mean that you’ll get in. That said, you can’t contribute someone getting in solely due to race. Extracurriculars, geographic diversity, course rigor, personality reflected in the essays, and many other factors come in to play.</p>
<p>Seriously. I just dislike the false ideology engraved in many people’s minds on these forums that URMS have it the “easy way”. I’m certain that there are various others with the same ethnic background as the applicant complaining who were admitted. I don’t see people targeting those situations for debate, but rather they to be obsessed with declaring it “affirmative action” if one African American makes it into a top school because they were extremely qualified. (As many other applicants are from all backgrounds)</p>
<p>~ Theos</p>
<p>URMs in wealthy households do have it the easy way; much easier than Caucasians in poor households. And like I’ve said before, what ticks me off isn’t so much that URMs are advantaged, but that Asians are disadvantaged against Caucasians. That is the most racist aspect of AA in my opinion.</p>
<p>^^^do you mind listing your stats beautifulnerd? </p>
<p>Anyway, it is completely unfair. Every “minority” wants to be considered equal, so get rid of the race question on the app. How has there not been lawsuits about this?</p>
<p>Also notice how all the URMs are saying that it doesn’t exist? Like Theos. Seriously Theos, most of them ARENT qualified especially to the level of their peers. Go the the stanford thread and look at the urms at got in. Then rethink your statement.</p>
<p>^^beautful nerd, you obviously have no knowledge of ivy league schools. They cannot give scholarships/admittance for athletics. Nor do they care about athletics.</p>
<p>collegebound, that is completely untrue. Ivy League schools simply cannot give athletic scholarships, but being an athletic recruit is a huge admissions boost. Hell, someone from my school was being recruited by Columbia to play baseball; his GPA was 3.1 and his SATs were ~1900.</p>