<p>When you say something that you don’t mean, you should not then be “offended” when people can’t read your mind.</p>
<p>Now, at least find a different argument because someone did address the point that you claim “everyone” is missing.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I’m not offended. I could care less what is said to/about me by anonymous people on the Internet. </p></li>
<li><p>I’m not getting into AA “arguments” anymore. Whoever has a problem can talk to their local gov representative and the colleges themselves. Arguing here won’t make a difference, nobody seems to be changing their mind.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Consider what you said earlier – that some refer to adult black men as “boys.” Wrong and racist, no doubt, but only if you take it literally. But, what if those people claimed to be speaking abstractly, like you do?</p>
<p>There’s the problem.</p>
<p>How can it be interpreted abstractly and be non-offensive? From my own personal experience/observations, the white men who call black men “boys” call other white men “men.”</p>
<p>EDIT: and by what you’re saying, ANYONE can get away with being racist/offensive by claiming to be abstractly speaking. It doesn’t apply to everything. </p>
<p>It’s a common generalization to use “everyone” to mean literally EVERYone or the majority of people. Its a mild/innocuous Hyperbole (I think.)</p>
<p>
College Bound Senior SAT scores. These numbers will help us see the “big” picture of the applicant pool.
<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-by-Gender-Ethnicity-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;
<p>Using your logic and words: “Everyone thinks differently. I don’t take things in a literal sense, so that’s how I speak.”</p>
<p>If you won’t accept those words from others, then you shouldn’t accept them for yourself.</p>
<p>The line stops somewhere. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t be a such thing as racism/offensive things being said, because they “didn’t mean it.” </p>
<p>You’re comparing my use of “everyone” to generalize “most people” to pacify racist comments.</p>
<p>Exactly the point – you can use any excuse you want to try to excuse words you later regret. </p>
<p>And where is the demarcation line? There could be endless interpretations. That’s why we should use language with clear intent. But you were claiming to take offense at many things, and it’s possible that you were misinterpreting, as well (not with the “boy” remarks, because that is clear, but other situations, not so much).</p>
<p>And back to the point that was addressed: like it or not, when white women benefit from AA, the outcome is different from other underrepresented groups.</p>
<p>Pointless argument is pointless.</p>
<p>AA is well meaning, and the intent is good. However, in its current state, it’s not a real solution to the problem. The problem with AA is that it should be focused primarily on socioeconomic issues, not racial issues. Although the intent of AA was to benefit lower class blacks, hispanics, and other minorities in education, the middle and upper class members of these same groups are the ones benefitting the most. For example, in our school district, there’s a high school that houses the gifted program. It contains both the gifted students which make up ~10% of the school, and the regular in zone students who make up most of the school. All of the students there have amazing stats. One student in particular, an Asian guy, had ridiculously high stats. He is a member of the US national youth chess team, a nationally competative pianist, was in the top ranks for the AMC (I forgot the actual name of the following tests, but the ones after AMC), and the valedictorian. He and several other students applied to Stanford. Among these students, only one was accepted at Stanford, a black girl. Her GPA, test scores, and EC’s were all significantly weaker. If this isn’t an example of a top school accepting a less qualified sudent over a very qualified student, I don’t know what is. And frankly, I’ve read some of the complaints about how Blacks and other groups need AA because of differences in cultural values, but that’s not our problem. So your culture doesn’t have a focus on education, that might explain your lower stats, but that shouldnt excuse them.</p>
<p>Because you’ve definitely read both applicants essays, teacher recommendations and whatnot, correct?
The black girl got accepted, and the asian guy didn’t. So? Maybe his essays sucked and hers didn’t. Maybe he was boring and she wasn’t. Maybe one of his teachers secretly despised him and wrote a bad rec. Maybe the girl had issues at home / in her family that she told no one about. Who knows.</p>
<p>What about the white people getting in with “significantly lower stats”?
NOBODY ever talks about them. </p>
<p>Even without AA, colleges HAVE to diversify. So they have a sort of unofficial quota system. </p>
<p>It’s funny how all of a sudden everyone knows a white/Asian kid who didn’t get in over a black/Hispanic kid with “significantly lower stats”. </p>
<p>There are minorities with high stats, and unless you’ve seen her transcript, essays, etc you can’t comment.</p>
<p>
So true. Proof? - > <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-washington/1108146-i-got-3-13-gpa.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-washington/1108146-i-got-3-13-gpa.html</a></p>
<p>This is an example of a genius getting rejected in favor of an average above average student. You’re making a few farfetched assumptions with both the teacher rec and the essay writing. I’ve read some of his material, it’s excellent stuff. Also, It’s exceedingly rare for a teacher to be so hateful and immature that rather than not write a rec, they would waste time and write a bad one. Also, with the difference in EC’s it’s reasonably easy to tell which is the more interesting applicant. The only realistic concern in this situation would be personal issues that she overcame. Hey look I know how to use bold! It does a great job emphasizing my point!</p>
<p>I haven’t seen either transript, but I’ve heard from people that I believe are reputable that her grades and classes were good, but not amazing. I agree that there are minorities with high stats, she wasn’t one of them. Also, more people mention white/Asian kids who are rejected in favor of a black/Hispanic because guess what, it’s relatively widespread. For white people, it’s largely a legacy thing, which, unlike AA is not a race wide benefit. Legacy is a benefit, but not to the scale of AA.</p>
<p>White kids who get in with low stats are few. Marine, I’m ashamed of you for trying to defend AA.</p>
<p>Thats a damn lie. </p>
<p>Every white kid at every school has a 4.0, 2400?</p>
<p>And if not, EVERY white kid has the SAME high stats? HIGHLY unlikely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not a lie. They probably compose >2% of students.</p>
<p>@woeishe: GTFOH.</p>
<p>@Robert: That’s wonderful, really. Just because you believe his essays were “excellent stuff” doesn’t mean the adcom thought so, too.</p>
<p>Marine, don’t contradict yourself. I know how you really feel.</p>
<p>Let me make my point clear then, since you are either unable or unwilling to see it. He is a good writer. Is a 5 word sentence clear enough for you? The pieces I read were creative writing pieces, similar to college essays, not some kind of analytical paper. I doubt a good writer would do poorly on the essay. They may not do amazingly, but certainly not poorly.</p>
<p>Also, woeishe remained relatively civil in his comments while you’re resorting to profanity. That doesn’t exactly help you convince anyone of the validity of your view.</p>
<p>Edit: So I read the example you posted. He might have gotten lucky or something. However, guess what? He was applying to UW instate. UW isn’t in the same tier as Stanford, and the instate makes it somewhat easier. At my school, something like 90% of the seniors apply to UW since our town is a satelite city of Seattle. Almost all of them get accepted. Although due to budget issues, many public schools want out of state students, instate students still get some prority.</p>