<p>Hello, I was just wondering what you CC'ers thought about affirmative action. To be clear, colleges do not use racial quotas anymore, they mostly evaluate you based on your socioeconomic status, but race is often tied to that premise. </p>
<p>So. State your position, and how the policy affects you. Then give some reasons!</p>
<p>Yay - negatively impacts me (asian girl with good grades)
1) Gives the disadvantaged a chance to participate.
2) Numbers do not accurately measure achievement.</p>
<p>African American- I guess it helps..... , but I will clearly earn my spot at all the schools I apply to, not just because of my ( URM) status..which is really annoying when people say the only reason you will get in "XYZ'', is because of your (URM) status. :/</p>
<p>Nay - negatively impacts me (asian)
1) Statistics show that being a URM is comparable to adding (a lot) of points to your SAT score.
2) Admissions at top schools is a crapshoot, which is why being a URM with high SATs solidifies your chances a lot more than being an ORM with high SATs; making you MUCH more likely to be accepted. (Everyone that applies to these schools has high scores, so URMs are more likely to admitted due to AA).
3) Most people that benefit from AA are not improverished URMs, but middle class and wealthy URMs or those of upper-class of Nigeria, Caribbean nations, etc.</p>
<p>I really hate the fact that most AA is based off of race. If it were based off of socioeconomic factors, I would support it. </p>
<p>I grew up as a white/hispanic girl in the ghetto. Does that mean I am at any more of a disadvantage then the African American girl who grew up next door? No, we came from virtually the same circumstances and had the same opportunities. But am I at a disadvantage from the white/hispanic girl who grew up with parents making $250,000 a year and could afford tutors and prep classes and the like? Obviously. </p>
<p>That's my take, and I am somebody who benefits from cultural AA, but listed myself as "other" on applications so that it wouldn't make a difference.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is a definite nay. First of all, what should race have to do with anything? Is a supposedly "tolerant" world, isn't affirmative action just racism against majorities? In my mind, racism exists on the level of regarding race in any decision. By a college recognizing race, that in fact is racist! I do believe private colleges have a right to choose any applicant for any reason, but affirmative action shouldn't be mandated. If the best possible kids for any school happen to be a certain race, that's life. I could just be cranky, being affirmative action doesn't do me too well, but nevertheless, I find affirmative action to be a repulsive system which does absolutely no good to any organization.</p>
<p>Nay. </p>
<p>I am lower middle class, Hispanic, and female. </p>
<p>Even though it'd "benefit" me, I truly couldn't take the advantage with a clean concience knowing a white kid- just as qualified as me or maybe more- is been disadvantaged because of the color of his skin. </p>
<p>I am not even applying to any race-related scholarship (i.e. the Hispanic fund or whatever it's called)</p>
<p>P.S.- I even checked the "not telling" option in the race/ethnicity section of my college app! Go for integrity and staying true to one's beliefs!</p>
<p>I'm for affirmative action as a non-rich, non-URM, benefits-nonexistent-for-myself person, as long as it's used as a factor to promote diversity and a couple beneficial, worthwhile factors. Obviously I wouldn't agree about giving the same treatment to a multimillionaire African-American as a ghetto Hispanic. And such.</p>
<p>It's a complex issue, I have mixed feelings, but basically I think race should be used as a factor in admissions, although sometimes I wonder how much of an extreme it makes a difference in several cases.</p>
<p>Oh god.. not this again..</p>
<p>Socioeconomic status should be its basis. Overrepresented minority is the most annoying oxymoron ever..ever...</p>
<p>@metdethgnr: that's admirable, but i think you should take the race-related scholarship. there are also scholarships for asian-americans, italian-americans, black americans, etc. </p>
<p>yay in private school admissions, nay in public school admissions--rich asian girl. negative impact. </p>
<p>i do think affirmative action is unfair. however, i wouldn't want to go to a school composed of just asian overachievers (even though i am one, lol). diversity adds a lot to a campus, whether that's geographic, socioeconomic, racial, etc.</p>
<p>... Nay</p>
<p>I don't think it is based as much on race anymore, it is mostly socioeconomic.
I know an African American student, who came from a rich private school in the East Coast, had 2300+ and major extracurricular involvement and was rejected at Princeton and MIT. He got into Stanford though. Point is --- he is treated just like the rest of us.</p>
<p>Btw, they can't use RACIAL QUOTAS anymore -- that's banned. So some of your concerns about "more qualified white person" didn't get in and a "unqualified hispanic" did, are unfounded. </p>
<p>The policy isn't "fair", but i feel it is at least one commendable, tangible effort made to decrease inequality in society. Opportunities aren't equal, and there should be some way to balance it all out.</p>
<p>I feel like AA is very misunderstood.
It's not like schools take lower socioeconomic students or URM students who aren't qualified for their schools. Anyone they admit is qualified. And as far as I know, AA isn't mandated. </p>
<p>Simply put, when there are equal candidates a school might choose an URM over a majority candidate. Schools have to have tie-breakers occassionally, and this is just one type of it. Not everyone can be admitted, and honestly the racial unfairness of AA that you all seemed to be worried about can't be that big of deal when most schools still only have 6% african american and even less hispanis and native american.</p>
<p>So while a high-class, prep school, URM might have had more opportunities than a disadvanted URM...I still don't see the problem with picking him over a high-class, prep school, well-represented majority candidate.</p>
<p>Anyways, that is my take on diversity initiatives. As long as they aren't mandated and there aren't quotas to fill, I see no problem with trying to increase diversity on campus. Although, I do wish people would stop saying that URMs get into college simply because they are URMs, that is the most annoying assumption I have ever heard in the college admissions process.</p>
<p>Nay.</p>
<p>It could effect me for good or bad depending on how I fill out my application, although I wouldn't take advantage of it.</p>
<p>I'm caucasian. Although I have a fair amount of Native American blood, and still have the tribal connections I'd never use it admissions because I'm personally not invoved in that part of my family. </p>
<p>I also believe it should be based soley on socio-economic. COming from a family that's low income but completely white. (My dad'sside was native american and now it's just mom and me.) Why don't I deserve an advantage but someone from the same exact situation, but a different race get one?</p>
<p>What makes me laugh is I have a class with an African American (Is that the politically correct term. I can't remember anymore. What's the point?) who always talks about how AA is so helpful to "his people", although the ironic thing is the little white girl has more in common with "his people" than he does.</p>
<p>Nay, of course Nay :)</p>
<p>
TOTALLY agree. </p>
<p>If we want to give people who are at a disadvantage a chance to succeed -- to even out the playing ground, which I totally support -- why would we use race as a basis instead of socioeconomic status? Shouldn't we be striving to make race irrelevant in our world?</p>
<p>It's not that minority groups are unqualified. But there is a such a paranoid fear of accepting a "typical Asian" (and most Asians accepted do admittedly have higher average grades and scores than URMs). Almost EVERYONE that applies to top schools is qualified, or they wouldn't waste their time and money. Most of these students could potentially be on the borderline of being accepted or not, and race is one of the major factors, uncontrollable by the student, that can push one person in over another. That's what makes it unfair, because it's not something we can change in any way. Whose to say that having a person of a different skin tone accepted over me would make the campus more diverse, ONLY because s/he has a different skin tone? Until our country's institutions become totally color blind (no discrimination AND no AA), race will always be a big issue. An I agree that race is definitely not the same thing as socioeconomic status; your race is not hardship you've overcome the way poverty is.</p>
<p>I applaud everyone that didn't mark their race on their applications, even when it would benefit them. Of course, if I were in your place, while I would still be against the system, I would choose to use it to my greatest advantage. You are all more admirable souls than I am.</p>
<p>Yay*(Yay with an asterisk)</p>
<p>I am a South Asian and it doesnt benefit me at all.... but the fact of the matter is that it benefits a lot of people... some who should be benefited and others who should not be. </p>
<p>Its true that colleges often use race as a proxy for socio economic class which i happen to disagree with. It disregards the white, asian etc students who have not had the same opportunity as other people. In its current form, i do not support it. However, if that one thing were changed and race was eliminated as a deciding factor, i would support it.</p>
<p>Yay-- negatively impacts me
Because I did a whole research thing on this topic for a debate in history class
There was this one survey that anonmously polled college admissions officers, and found that more than half of them were just prejucided against non-white races (im assuming these prejudiced officers were white themselves), AND, if they had to choose between two students with practically the same qualifications, but there was only room for one, and one was Hispanic or African-American and the other, white, the aforementioned prejudiced officers would pick the white student
AA protects URM and it does not use race has a huge factor. That is, if you were truly qualified, a less qualified URM will NOT take your spot</p>
<p>I ended up on the pro side, and we won the debate :] hahaha</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel like AA is very misunderstood.
It's not like schools take lower socioeconomic students or URM students who aren't qualified for their schools. Anyone they admit is qualified. And as far as I know, AA isn't mandated.</p>
<p>Simply put, when there are equal candidates a school might choose an URM over a majority candidate. Schools have to have tie-breakers occassionally, and this is just one type of it. Not everyone can be admitted, and honestly the racial unfairness of AA that you all seemed to be worried about can't be that big of deal when most schools still only have 6% african american and even less hispanis and native american.</p>
<p>So while a high-class, prep school, URM might have had more opportunities than a disadvanted URM...I still don't see the problem with picking him over a high-class, prep school, well-represented majority candidate.</p>
<p>Anyways, that is my take on diversity initiatives. As long as they aren't mandated and there aren't quotas to fill, I see no problem with trying to increase diversity on campus. Although, I do wish people would stop saying that URMs get into college simply because they are URMs, that is the most annoying assumption I have ever heard in the college admissions process.
[/quote]
Agree with this; epic.</p>
<p>Nay (I'm on paper as Hispanic, but I'm Half Asian too)</p>
<p>Being Hispanic serves me well :P</p>