Affirmative action? Yay or nay

Pre-College Issues High School Life
21

<p>How much of it is based off of race now? Probably not as much as you think.</p>

<p>The whole reason why I support it is because it isn't based so much on race as on socioeconomic factors.</p>

<p>Answer to an earlier post: No, we can't completely eliminate race as a factor (though you could just skip that section) because eliminating race would lead to overachieving Asians taking up half the school, and the colleges wouldn't want that. People aren't born equals; the only way to achieve "fairness" in opportunities is to balance that out with policies like affirmative action.</p>

22

<p>It is in my self-interest to support AA. :)</p>

23

<p>Colleges wouldn't want Asians in their schools? Well, that sucks for those of us who may have been economically disadvantaged, or equal in status to wealthier URMs, but don't have the right skin color to show for it. I don't see what's so wrong with being Asian, or what's so wrong with being an overachiever. Just because I'm self-motivated and of a certain race should not make me a less desirable candidate. Why shouldn't colleges be color blind? And if admissions officers discriminate against URMs (and why would they discriminate against these groups as opposed to Asians?), then there should not even be a race section on the application. Of course race is a very minute factor, but the fact that it IS a factor is (in my view) a problem. I know that I have no control over what colleges decide to do, but I still find it wrong.</p>

24

<p>from a URM - Yay. And I'm probably more qualified than some whites attending the schools I'm applying to, so it's not just because it will help me get in. i actually, strongly feel that AA is beneficial to society, and should be encouraged further.</p>

<p>people who feel AA is working against them because they are the "wrong" race are thinking the wrong way. </p>

<p>i'll give an example to show my perspective:</p>

<p>imagine that a school is deciding between a white applicant and a black applicant. imagine that they both exceed the basic qualifications for admittance into the school. the white applicant does have a slightly higher GPA, slightly higher test scores, the laundry list of typical ECs, and the laundry list of typical awards. the black applicant doesn't quite have such a strong application. both aspire to be doctors.</p>

<p>in the end, the college chooses the black applicant over the white applicant. denied his first choice, the white student still gets into another equally strong school and enrolls there instead. there are cries of reverse racism, and that the white student just wasn't born "the right color", he was more qualified and was discriminated against, and what have you. </p>

<p>but this is what the school saw:</p>

<p>15 years from now, the white student has graduated from college with honors, finished med school, and has opened a successful practice in a suburban neighborhood, pulling in 300k a year. </p>

<p>in the meantime, the black student has also graduated from med school, and the institution he went to opened doors for him that he would not have gotten through otherwise. he has now opened the first black-owned medical practice in his neighborhood, and has become an inspiration to other young minorities in his community.</p>

<p>now somebody tell me, whose education went the longer way? the "typical" (no Obama) overachieving white student with all the qualifications, who opened up just another 500k/year medical practice on his street? or the black student who may not have had such a strong application, but had the potential to break down social barriers and become a greater inspiration to others? </p>

<p>Barack Obama started his college education at a CC. what if Harvard Law had rejected Barack Obama in favor of a "more qualified" white student?</p>

25

<p>See, there's much more to AA than just "Oh black > white/asian" and Bam. It accounts for many factors, and from an article I remember having assigned in school, it said something about accounting for futures, and etc. Basically it isn't as shallow and racist as I thought before, and actually serves some decent purpose.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Colleges wouldn't want Asians in their schools? Well, that sucks for those of us who may have been economically disadvantaged, or equal in status to wealthier URMs, but don't have the right skin color to show for it. I don't see what's so wrong with being Asian, or what's so wrong with being an overachiever. Just because I'm self-motivated and of a certain race should not make me a less desirable candidate. Why shouldn't colleges be color blind? And if admissions officers discriminate against URMs (and why would they discriminate against these groups as opposed to Asians?), then there should not even be a race section on the application. Of course race is a very minute factor, but the fact that it IS a factor is (in my view) a problem. I know that I have no control over what colleges decide to do, but I still find it wrong.

[/quote]

It should be a factor to promote bigger things such as diversity, overall school's image, atmosphere, etc; having 100% Asians in a school won't be much of a diverse school. </p>

<p>It may seem unfair to you that they're using a factor which you have no control over. When you think about it, they use other of those "shady" factors as well, such as geographic location, family, legacy, and etc. You may not have chosen to be in a competitive state, or you may not have chosen to be born/raised in a nation other than the U.S. (which makes internationals harder to get into top schools), oh well, you're evaluated according to how you make the most out of your situation. </p>

<p>To quote my obese third grade teacher, life isn't totally fair in all areas. Little coincidences, an event in life can change everything. Strangely, all Asians I know that are hardworking and unique in their own areas have had no problems getting into top schools, and because the U.S. uses a **holistic<a href="in%20every%20sense%20of%20the%20word">/B</a> approach to college admissions, that's how the system works.</p>

26

<p>I vote fence sitter.</p>

<p>I don't think AA really affects that many college admissions to the point that it's like "oh, I lost my spot to a less qualified URM." Colleges will never get to the '2-equal-kids-1-spot-left-so-choose-the-colored-kid-cause-he-was-clearly-disadvantaged kind of thing. Schools don't always choose the "more intelligent" candidate; there are just way too many factors that affect admissions. </p>

<p>Now legacy. That is a stupid reason for accepting someone.</p>

27

<p>Legacy -- i passively accept. They need the money and patriotism. It is stupid for nonlegacies, but hey, that's how they keep the school "nice".</p>

<p>Think about it this way -- if AA and legacy both hurt you, then you making into a top school is JUST THAT MUCH MORE of an achievement. No matter what the barriers, those with a solid application will still be accepted. </p>

<p>People get lost with the rules and numbers of the system that they forget to focus on the things that TRULY matter, it seems.</p>

<p>*Asian thing -- people don't hate us. It's just a lot of us are all soooo alike. If life was measured by taking tests, we'd RULE THE WORLD. Our culture breeds us to be academically focused beings. Though this doesn't apply to all asians, but definitely the majority major in science and math, majors that lead to lucrative careers.</p>

28

<p>It depends what you mean by "affirmative action." The FAQ thread </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/651345-race-college-admissions-faq-discussion-3-a.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>in the College Admissions Forum has more information.</p>

29

<p>Nay... I'm at a disadvantage by the system. </p>

<p>Sigh... why do proponents of affirmative action always assume either: </p>

<p>1). The AA minority is from a socio-economically disadvantaged background. </p>

<p>or </p>

<p>2). His/Her successful education through affirmative action would benefit others of that individual's ethnic group, stereotypically from lesser income neighborhoods.</p>

<p>The answer is that neither is true. Colleges don't accept people based on socio-economic diversity... but based purely on ethnic background for AA. Let's not kid ourselves that through some Disney like distortion of reality that some disadvantaged kid from a truly run down neighborhood would actually make it into schools that employ affirmative action. I go to school in south LA, and my school is a few miles down from Compton. Even suggesting AA opens the doors for some of these kids here is not even a bad joke. A few that do make it through are happy to make it to a Cal State at best to make the most of their education. </p>

<p>Diversity is extremely important anywhere, but not at the face of filling up an invisible quota so that the schools can make their ethnic pie charts look good for a brochure. AA should be based almost solely on individual circumstances, opportunities obtained in life and socio-economic status.</p>

30

<p>"Obese" really necessary to describe your teacher? haha</p>

<p>AA today doesn't use quotas, and that's the kind I meant. Colleges in general don't have say, 1000 spaces and they will only admit 1200. If they think your application shows a good enough side of you, you can become the 1201th admit. </p>

<p>I think too many people bash on AA without knowing everything it stands for.</p>

31

<p>AA is epic failure, but the fact is, colleges are institutions that can choose how they admit people and dont have to justify it, unless there is a case of discrimination. The spirit of AA is off, but the result, which is more diversity in colleges, is not a bad thing once you get to college. Most reasonable people will enjoy being at a school with a mix of people, and even though admisssions at, say Pton, is easier for a black person (or A-A, shoot me) the black person will not be underqualified, and will probably add just as much as you will to the school's overall community.</p>

32

<p>Nay! I support California's ban.</p>

<p>Race should be irrelevant. Why not leave it out of the admissions entirely so that officers will not know what color you are? Being judged on solely your academic/ec merits is REAL equality. </p>

<p>'Promoting diversity' in colleges only means quotas based on random numbers, ie. national averages. Who got the idea that races in the US are spread equally in the same averages everywhere?</p>

33

<p>Affirmative Action is definitely exclusionary. There is nothing that can support it because it places students where they should not be. Asians have a disadvantage too; that's not fair to whoever is an asian.</p>

34

<p>


</p>

<p>I KNOW you did not just say that. </p>

<p>By your very wise (not) argument, you are implying that the black students- or black people in general- would serve their community more and thus have a tendency to be more generous. Contrasting of course, with the selfish, rich WASP, who, like you said would be making "300K a year".</p>

<p>You have no grounds to base this on. There are many charities out there- like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation- that have been started by... guess who??? White people! (NO WAY!)</p>

<p>But yes, as unbelievable as it may sound, black poor people, or poor "minorities" are not the only ones with a heart. As a matter of fact, just as there have been many rich white men (oh no!) who have started charities, there have also been many rich black (or Hispanic, or Asian, etc) men and women who started poor and when they reached the top, they did nothing to help their former communities.</p>

<p>Of course, there's always people like Oprah- yes, she started poor and then she became a philanthropist- but like I said, many, many, many, many, many (did I say many yet?) charities and organizations have been started by non-minorities. It is absolutely ridiculous to argue that because someone is rich, white, male, and protestant (evil white men! evil white men!) they are only going to benefit themselves. Again, this is not to say that the opposite is true- that all white men are generous souls ready to give up their earnings for the smile of a poor child. Far from it. But stating that all poor black (or any other minority) child that makes it to the top will "help" others out of his own good will is also wishful thinking. He may like he may not. Just like a WASP may or he may not. It really is up to the individual's nature.</p>

35

<p>NAY
I am white.</p>

36

<p>blue_g8orade's comment may have been exaggerated, but there's no denying that a black person "making it" in life is a lot more inspirational than a white person doing the same thing.</p>

37

<p>Yay</p>

<p>I am white.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
there's no denying that a black person "making it" in life is a lot more inspirational than a white person doing the same thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not about what's inspirational... it's about what's fair. If Obama's children make it through life, is that more inspirational than the story of a person "making it" from a trailer park? Even Obama himself said that affirmative action should reflect socio-economic status more than race.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
By your very wise (not) argument, you are implying that the black students- or black people in general- would serve their community more and thus have a tendency to be more generous. Contrasting of course, with the selfish, rich WASP, who, like you said would be making "300K a year".</p>

<p>You have no grounds to base this on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, there are grounds in the case of medicine. Studies done by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) shows that minority students are more likely to serve in underserved areas. Furthermore, studies show that patients are more at ease when dealing with physicians of the same race. Hence, that's one of the justifications used by medical schools to practice AA.</p>

<p>People who argue for socioeconomic AA don't understand the point of AA. Affirmative Action isn't to reward students necessarily for overcoming adversity and disadvantages. Some proponents of AA use this argument and I think that's why people tend to see that as the goal of affirmative action. The main goal of affirmative action is simply to increase the proportion of URM's in college, grad school, employment. Part of the reason is so the school can slap a black face on a pamphlet and call themselves diverse and part of the reason is that URMs do bring unique perspectives to the classroom. So, under this paradigm, a rich black will always be more valuable than an Asian or white person, no matter how poor they were or how much adversity they've overcome.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
there's no denying that a black person "making it" in life is a lot more inspirational than a white person doing the same thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL...maybe 100 years ago...</p>