<p>very nice post</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that while race may play a factor in diversity, it isn't fair to make it the ONLY factor in diversity. Diversity is an ambiguous word and applying it solely to race is rather... not so intelligent.
[/quote]
This I agree with 100%. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, your race plays a part in who you are, but the part is minute.
[/quote]
But if you admit that race does play a role in diversity, why do you see a problem with it being a factor in college admissions, if what a particular college is after is diversity? It seems like you're saying that colleges should be concerned with diversity, except when it comes to race, which is something I don't quite understand. It seems to me like you're downplaying the effect race does in fact have on diversity and individuals.</p>
<p>I'm not downplaying the effect. It doesn't have to be downplayed.
But to say that a college is diverse and to solely use race as a measure of this? The idea is laughable.</p>
<p>If I grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood, I would most likely be more like them than any other race. And yet, according to colleges, I'm still 100% Caucasian and any Hispanic who grew up in a Caucasian neighborhood is still 100% Hispanic.</p>
<p>I repeat, skin color does not define who we are, it is our experiences that do.</p>
<p>Race isn't 'just another factor' anymore. It's a huge factor now.
For example, if I went into the African American Acceptances thread now, I would not be able to use it as a guideline for myself. </p>
<p>I have a problem with Affirmative Action as it stands now. I'd rather see an overall incorporation of every kind of diversity [Which won't happen - it's just much too complicated. We're all different.] than what it is now - Grossly oversimplified and predetermined categories into which we 'fit' in.</p>
<p>Diversity basically means difference. If there is a single Caucasian person on Earth who has more in common with an African American person than another Caucasian, the whole point is moot and Affirmative Action a fallacy.</p>
<p>Dbate....you're right on. EmekChris...you're pathetic, and you're NOT joking; you're gaming the system and you're easily exposed.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action is a dinosaur, or it should be. When it comes right down to it, under-qualified applicants are taking away years of effort from more qualified applicants; why?... because of race? And THAT's not racist? Any decision based on race is racist! Race should not even be on the application, as someone mentioned above. If schools claim to be 'need-blind', why not also be 'heritage-blind' or 'race-blind'? Why should any 1 single applicant be viewed as part of the entirety of a certain race, and have this be cause for acceptance or denial? It needs to be applicant vs applicant vs applicant based only on accomplishments. Skin color or hair color or ht or wt or your dad's name is irrelevant. I'm not naive enough to believe this will truly ever be the case, but practicing the unethical behavior of AA is simply wrong.</p>
<p>Falling back on the catch-all phrase 'diversity', is a copout as well. Are blacks the only poor people? There are lots and lots of poor whites, and poor arabs, and poor asians too. Can poor white applicants be provided a lower admission threshold, because they're poor? Nope. But a wealthy black applicant, who might be a borderline student, can take advantage of such a lower threshold. And that's supposed to be OK? Such hypocrisy. </p>
<p>As someone else mentioned, blacks who are indeed talented and deserving of admission on a level playing field, should be completely against AA for the reason that they might be seen as though they were granted an exception, rather than being truly deserving of their efforts.</p>
<p>For those of you in favor of AA, I'll ask you this. The next time you or your loved one needs heart surgery, or such, let's look for that doctor who was admitted to make for a more 'diverse' applicant pool to unblock your arteries. I wonder if mother nature will allow them to do just a so-so job and look the other way.</p>
<p>OMG, I WAS joking. However, I don't see what is so bad about AA in the first place. There are major social problems that need to be mitigated. Barely any African Americans score above a 1300/1600 on the SAT and many are trapped within a lower socioeconomic status. If AA did not exist, the African-American population at the top universities would be miniscule. And those that do get into a great school due to AA can compete at the level of those that did not. AA does not equal poor quality. Secondly, what is difference between racial AA, and AA based on being a legacy? The acceptance rates for legacies are much higher than those for URM. No one ever complains about this. George Bush got into Yale because of this kind of AA and no one is complaining about this. I also notice that those that got into a good university by AA are always trying to get rid of it? Why? AA is a major reason why many URMs are in elite universities in the first place. I just don't understand what the big deal is. AA is just a solution to a deep rooted issue.</p>
<p>"Barely any African Americans score above a 1300/1600 on the SAT and many are trapped within a lower socioeconomic status."</p>
<p>EmikChris...what an awful, racist, and stereotypical statement that is! You just insulted thousands of blacks who DO deserve to be admitted on their own hard work and merit. It's this type of thought that assumes that blacks cannot get admitted without AA, which is soooooo narrow minded and naive.</p>
<p>So to take your reasoning another step, w/o AA, you thinks blacks would not get admitted due to poor SATs. Yet, once admitted, any AA-benefitting student will somehow miraculously be able to compete with other students who were admitted with SATs of 1500/2250? Just because they were admitted, everyone is now on par? No difference with legacy either; if you don't truly meet admission stds, then you don't meet admission stds!
You should pray that you don't have that C- med student, admitted under AA, become your heart surgeon.</p>
<p>SAT scores do not measure capability. And what I said is fact. Many are in a lower socioeconomic status (I did not say MOST) and many do not get above a 1300/1600. That is really rare in the African American community. Getting a 650 on each section of the SAT is in the 98 percentile for African Americans. It is not racist, it is fact. I never said that African Americans are not able to get into universities without AA, of course we are. But what says that one can't be talented without a 2000 SAT score. Michelle Obama said she had lower SAT scores and she got into Princeton. She has lived a rather accomplished life afterwards. It is proven that those admitted under AA still can compete at a high level, colleges wouldn't waste space or money on them otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd rather see an overall incorporation of every kind of diversity
[/quote]
though obviously this can't happen to the extent that I'd like, I think universities are much more far along in incorporating many kinds of diversity than you think. Race is ONE part of what they evaluate in an applicant's context - it is NOT the end-all be-all of one's application. I don't know why people make it out to seem like it is. </p>
<p>And like I said before, if colleges want to practice holistic admissions and consider an applicant's context in totality, I don't see anything unfair about asking for race or using it in admissions, because it is a part of an applicant's context. And I'd argue that it's a very important one. You can't just pick and choose which aspects of 'diversity' you want to consider.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When it comes right down to it, under-qualified applicants are taking away years of effort from more qualified applicants; why?... because of race? And THAT's not racist? Any decision based on race is racist!
[/quote]
Several things wrong with this:
1. Define 'qualified'. If someone is admitted and is able to succeed in the college, I'd call them 'qualified'. Minorities, once admitted, tend to perform just as well as whites and asians. So if I need heart surgery and I know the surgeon performing it did just as well as everyone else in his/her medical school class, I wouldn't be any more worried than if it were an asian surgeon.
2. Admissions decisions are not based on race. They're based on a whole factor of things that a college determines as important in building a class. Notice I said 'building a class' and not 'admitting the most 'deserving' applicants possible'. If what a college wants is diversity, race can and should play a role in trying to achieve a diverse class. No, it shouldn't play the ONLY role in diversity, but pretending like race shouldn't play any role when a college wants a diverse class is, IMNSHO, foolish and naive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can poor white applicants be provided a lower admission threshold, because they're poor?
[/quote]
Though I disagree with your word choice in 'threshold,' I would venture to answer that yes, poor whites and asians are also looked at in context. If they come from a disadvantaged background and a college is made aware of this, they will get a 'boost' so to speak in admissions because colleges value diversity other than race <em>gasp</em>, namely socioeconomic diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As someone else mentioned, blacks who are indeed talented and deserving of admission on a level playing field, should be completely against AA for the reason that they might be seen as though they were granted an exception, rather than being truly deserving of their efforts.
[/quote]
I still feel that this is a poor excuse to be anti-AA. There will always be insensitive people in the world who feel that in order to make themselves feel better, they have to belittle the achievements of others. This is no reason to take away an important means of leveling the playing field.</p>
<p>emekchris is right and the fact still remains that half of you that are getting into ivys and other prestigious institutions probably wouldn't be getting into those university if not because of your race that is a fact. so get over it. the college admission process is one of the rare times in life that minorities get an upper hand and if you don't like it well just don't select a ethnicity on your college application.</p>
<p>Ahhhhhhh, now I see; shoe's on the other foot, so just 'get over it'.
Great to use the race card when it's convenient isn't it? Not exactly bred with ethics, huh Solo?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I also notice that those that got into a good university by AA are always trying to get rid of it? Why? AA is a major reason why many URMs are in elite universities in the first place. I just don't understand what the big deal is. AA is just a solution to a deep rooted issue. "
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As deep rooted as the problem is your post demonstrates the problem it creates. You yourself who are in favor of AA state that those who come from elite universities and are black are trying to end something that helped them. Inherent in that statement is the assumption that they would not get in without being black which is wrong because it denigrates many of their achievements. And if you look at the profiles of the African Americans against AA who went to top school you would see they were at the top of the heap before, during, and after college. They could have been successful without AA and that is what makes them mad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I still feel that this is a poor excuse to be anti-AA. There will always be insensitive people in the world who feel that in order to make themselves feel better, they have to belittle the achievements of others. This is no reason to take away an important means of leveling the playing field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The playing field should only be level if there is need. I thought about in my own context and a poor black student with lower stats and who had to struggle should probably be admitted over me if our other qualifications are equal.
Within your statement however is the blanket assumption that an entire group is disadvantaged. I will honestly admit as an intelligent black student that there are unique hardships that we all have to face, and I think we all know what I am talking about, but I do not agree about the extent to which those hardships should play out in admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Recognizing the achievement gap as something that is very real even adjusting for family income (or, as someone so aptly put it, rich black person =/= rich white person), what do those of you who are anti-AA propose we do in the process of trying to remedy the achievement gap if AA were to be eliminated right now? A better way of phrasing that: if AA were eliminated right now, and given that we were (very slowly) working towards eliminating the achievement gap among races that continue to exist despite adjusting for socioeconomic difference, what do you propose we do in the mean time?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Within your statement however is the blanket assumption that an entire group is disadvantaged.
[/quote]
Do you not agree that many, if not most, are disadvantaged, though? I think it helps many more than it gives an 'unfair' advantage to, even given how it is currently implemented.</p>
<p>"And if you look at the profiles of the African Americans against AA who went to top school you would see they were at the top of the heap before, during, and after college."</p>
<p>This is not true. If I am not mistaken (correct me if I am wrong) Clarence Thomas was not "top of the heap" and he is still against AA even though it helped him.</p>
<p>**I don't think there is any use arguing over this. AA exists and there is nothing at this point in time that will make universities abandon the practice. I hope that one day the "playing field" is totally leveled and that we would not need programs like AA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope that one day the "playing field" is totally leveled and that we would not need programs like AA.
[/quote]
I hope so, too.</p>
<p>I agree with AA because the broken educational system in America (imo) lends itself AA. Most blacks live in districts with mediocre schools since property taxes aren't high. Since blacks are disproportionately funded in their primary/secondary education they should at least be given preference for college. Basically, I think AA should be stopped when the gov't decides to spend the same amount on each student or maybe even (fingers crossed) adopt a Finnish model of education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Recognizing the achievement gap as something that is very real even adjusting for family income (or, as someone so aptly put it, rich black person =/= rich white person), what do those of you who are anti-AA propose we do in the process of trying to remedy the achievement gap if AA were to be eliminated right now? A better way of phrasing that: if AA were eliminated right now, and given that we were (very slowly) working towards eliminating the achievement gap among races that continue to exist despite adjusting for socioeconomic difference, what do you propose we do in the mean time?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I propose that we do nothing as relates to college admission, but rather impact through perception. I go to a school that is 40% black and many of those students are wealthier than I am. I mean thier parents own MULTIPLE businesses, work for NASA, they drive mercedez etc. These students are NOT disadvantaged, but they still preform at a lesser level. Why? Because I truly believe that it is self-imposed. People hear Advanced Placement and assume it is hard rather and believe they can not achieve. It is the perception that minorities can not do something that causes many to not excel academically. That is the problem because even when minorities excel financial or academically they look around and see that other people like them are not doing well and so psychologically develop a negative perception of minority achievement. That is my opinion and my own experience. If black people see black people getting admitted to these top schools KNOWING they were only admitted because they were superbly qualified then they will believe that they can as well. </p>
<p>Sure it might take a few generations, but the important thing is that our children SEE what minorities can accomplish (ex. Obama who I disagree with but LOVE for the positive impact he can have for our people). This would adress the root of the problem as opposed to trying to counteract a phenomena that has already taken place. </p>
<p>And before people respond that Barack got where he is via affirmative action, I would say that at that point in time it was neccessary so that there COULD be examples. But now I really believe that there are enough accomplished minorities by thier own merits to get admitted so that affirmative action is unneccesary. (or at least I really hope) </p>
<p>
[quote]
"This is not true. If I am not mistaken (correct me if I am wrong) Clarence Thomas was not "top of the heap" and he is still against AA even though it helped him."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not know his LSAT scores, but I read that he was in the top 2% at Holy Cross so his GPA must have been excellent. And since Law school admissions is pretty much LSAT+GPA it is reasonable to assume that he was qualified as typically people who do well in school do well on standarized tests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"**I don't think there is any use arguing over this. AA exists and there is nothing at this point in time that will make universities abandon the practice. I hope that one day the "playing field" is totally leveled and that we would not need programs like AA. "
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think we as black people SHOULD be the ones arguing over AA because it allows us to think about the problems in our community that cause AA to even be neccesary. In all honesty the blacks on here are potentially the leaders and shining beacons like Obama of tomorrow and as such we HAVE to address these problems and discuss it otherwise they will just perpetuate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the fact still remains that half of you that are getting into ivys and other prestigious institutions probably wouldn't be getting into those university if not because of your race that is a fact. so get over it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is why I'm always hesitant to tell anyone about being accepted to top tier schools. Because I fear that like you, they'll disregard how hard I've worked, my talents, and all of my accomplishments just to say I got in based on the color of my skin. I don't think people realize how hurtful statements like this are.</p>
<p>"I don't think people realize how hurtful statements like this are."</p>
<p>I think they do, and if I were you, I wouldn't give them the satisfaction..</p>