<p>I definitely see an argument for consideration of family income (because people from low income areas often have to work harder to achieve the same things as kids from higher income areas). However, I think AA is flawed. I don't think race should have anything to do with college admissions.</p>
<p>Um... I never said it was entirely based on race. Blacks tend to be poorer, that's all. </p>
<p>What's fair? Please. Life isn't fair. Is it fair that others get cancer and others win the lottery? It's not about fairness, it's about evening the playing field so the disadvantaged (poor) can have more opportunities.</p>
<p>I'd be for it if it were for socio-economic reasons only. But it's not. It ****es me off that someone who is less qualified than I am will be more likely to get in just because I'm white and they're not.</p>
<p>double play!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I definitely see an argument for consideration of family income (because people from low income areas often have to work harder to achieve the same things as kids from higher income areas). However, I think AA is flawed. I don't think race should have anything to do with college admissions.
[/quote]
this response is a little off base. i have a tendency to be verbose, but this is why:</p>
<p>colleges don't necessarily look to reward people who worked the hardest. there is no school i can think of that accepts people only based on how hard they worked, so that is a false premise. there are other factors involved, but the bottom line is, colleges admit people based on their likelihood of bringing prestige to the school in the future through their success. </p>
<p>this is why, if it ever came down to it, a filthy rich 5-generation legacy student or #1 recruited athlete would get into a school like Michigan over a 4.0/2400 hardest-working student out there, every single time. Michael Phelps admittance to Michigan wasn't necessarily based on how hard he worked in the classroom (trust me, it's well known around this area of MD that he is borderline retarded). but when Michael Phelps says "University of Michigan", it's a hell of a lot bigger deal than when anybody else says it.</p>
<p>so on a smaller scale.. there are many minorities who have the tools to succeed in life and to bring that prestige to their alma mater, but traditionally they have been largely overlooked by admissions offices due to lower standardized scores/GPA on average than their white counterparts. </p>
<p>which brings us to affirmative action. i don't know if you've seen the rates of URM Ivy League grads in the workforce, or for percentage of URMs holding management positions in the workforce, but they aren't pretty. it doesn't matter how rich a minority applicant may be. ANY minority graduating from a top school is a huge step forward, and one that is needed to reverse the unfavorable trends we are seeing. your suggestion is that schools only take the truly disadvantaged minorities, and that they hold the academic stats of more privileged minorities under greater scrutiny, no? well, that wouldn't help fix the problem that affirmative action is trying to address. some of those privileged minorities, if afforded the opportunity to attend one of those top schools, would eventually end up as managers/CEOs, helping even more to reverse the trend. if you rejected them at higher rates, you would be rejecting more future successful minorities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd be for it if it were for socio-economic reasons only. But it's not. It ****es me off that someone who is less qualified than I am will be more likely to get in just because I'm white and they're not.
[/quote]
"less qualified" than you, huh? as if someone with a 4.0 and 10,000 ECs has an infinitely greater chance at success than another smart student with a 3.8 with 2-3 ECs. </p>
<p>among most of the posters on this site.... the presumptions of whose qualifications are legit and whose aren't are pretty much irrelevant to the real world. it's pretty patronizing for a 16-17 year old to conclude that he/she will be more successful in life than another person. especially when that conclusion is based solely on what the two of you have done over just 3-4 years.</p>
<p>and i hope it ****es you off just as much that a kid who's dad went to the school you're applying to will be "less qualified" than you and will get in. and that a kid who's aunt's husbands father is a senator will also be "less qualified" than you and will get into that school. </p>
<p>at the same time, show some outrage for the kids that are applying to school in your home state, but are less likely to get in than you because they are OOS. it's not their fault that they were born in Wisconsin instead of New York.</p>
<p>I'm hesitant to exactly say anything in the first place because of the U.S's holistic system of admitting applicants (at least from the universities most people care about at school, IMO...). It's really difficult to say, "I got rejected just because I was Asian", and "I got in because I was black", that may have not been the only factor. Geography is another that may not be under one's control but still may be a huge factor (I know a rich White guy who got in from a less competitive region), etc...</p>
<p>Because a host of factors and a host of circumstances are applied, and changes every year, and ultimately to select the best "class" as a whole, this whole thing is pretty sketchy. Your Asian: what if you weren't rejected because you were Asian, but because you were a soccer-star and that particular year had an overabundance of soccer-stars?</p>
<p>I'm with blue-gatorade for the most part. I really doubt AA is just "Oh black >>> Asian" and "Mexican pwn, Asian = fail" kind of black and white only-race thing. It's not about how a Mexican guy can just slack off 4 yrs and be a druggie and own a hardworking Asian. </p>
<p>If you're "qualified" and a stellar applicant anyways, your race should not matter much anyways; it's one of those things you can't control like a host of other things.</p>
<p>It's not about AA being "completely fair", nothing in life is...</p>
<p>I can't believe I have to ramble about this, but since I'm bored and since everyone seems to be saying "Oh I'm more qualified *** that kid's dumb he's black he's auto-in I'm white and smart so I'm not in!!"...</p>
<p>For the record, a lot of the times, especially in the U.S. where it has a holistic approach, the term "more qualified" is hogwash. A person with a 4.0GPA/2400SAT top 5% class rank doesn't necessarily make him more qualified than one with 3.5/2100/top20%.</p>
<p>If the admissions was based entirely on a test score and/or GPA like some Asian countries do, then you can objectively say one is more qualified than another; because the U.S. is holistic and takes into account multiple factors, you can't really say "I was more qualified than him". </p>
<p>Of course, someone with a 1400SAT/2.0GPA no EC's can't be as qualified as the guy with 4.0/2400/stellar EC's; that isn't the obvious point I'm trying to make. Excluding the most extreme cases (that never happen anyway; the latter in the case above wouldn't have a chance at the schools that most people bother to complain about AA anyways), once there is a certain threshold of people, there's no objective criteria that says who's more "qualified" or not. </p>
<p>That's why you can't say "Oh that Mexican kid who got into...Harvard with a 3.5/2000/decent Ec's, he's not qualified!!". </p>
<p>MODERATOR'S EDIT: </p>
<p>There is a new FAQ thread on this issue </p>
<p>in the forum where discussion of this issue is most on-topic. This thread, which has been inactive for a while, is now closed.</p>