<p>Would you mind explaining why?</p>
<p>i think AA shouldn't be used. the only case i can see is if two candidates were almost exactly alike, and the college picked the minority. </p>
<p>As far as the whole minorities don't get as good an education...well colleges take that into consideration. its how you do with what your given. i'm a minority by the way and although i'd love to see "You've been accepted to Stanford because your Hispanic and the other person with your same application wasn't", i dont think qoutas should be used.</p>
<p>"Opinion is one thing and we all have opinions about URM in selective college admissions and affirmative action. I do want to point out that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding using race and ethnicity in admissions has rendered it legal. And any and all of the most selective schools are behind this as well."</p>
<p>Uh, whether you believe that AA is right or wrong, I don't think that whether the courts and/or the colleges think it is right or wrong should have anything to do with what you think about it. You should make up your own mind about the issue, without having the issue 'framed' by what other institutions have decided about the issue. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Only a few generations ago, elite colleges were some of the most blatantly racist institutions in the country - far far more racist than private industry was at the time. Sowell has documented cases where in 1936, white colleges (meaning not the historically black colleges like Howard) as a whole had a total of only 3 black chemists as faculty members at a time when private industry had over 300 black chemists on the payroll (Markets and Minorities, Sowell). White colleges routinely blatantly discriminated against black applicants to the point of demanding photographs of all applicants, basically, to see whether the applicant was black. The same can be said for a wide range of 'isms back then - elite colleges also engaged in policies that were highly sexist, anti-Semitic (reference the Ivy League's "Jewish quotas"), and other blatantly discriminatory policies. And the courts at the time gave them free rein to do so. </p>
<p>The point is, you can't use what the courts have decided or what the colleges have decided as a basis as to what you think about AA. You have to make up your own mind about it. If you think that AA is right and justified because the courts and the colleges have decided that it is justified, then following the same logic, you are forced to agree that blatant discrimination by those same colleges against blacks that was defacto policy a few generations ago was equally right and justified. You can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>shyboy13,</p>
<p>I pity the person who falls back on the point-and-scream-subjectivity method. There is no objective truth; when you argue a point, it goes unsaid that the arguing is subjective. You saying it's my opinion is in itself no more than your own opinion.</p>
<p>Back to the topic, though. Affirmative Action is immoral, even according to the standards of biggest advocate of the black civil rights activist--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. No judgment ought to be placed with skin color as a factor. None.</p>
<p>pity the person who falls back on the point-and-scream-subjectivity method. </p>
<p>Mr. T, dont pity me because you blatantly called someone wrong when in fact you were wrong for calling him wrong and I pointed it out to you.</p>
<p>There is no objective truth; </p>
<p>There is an infinite number of objective truths in this world. </p>
<p>when you argue a point, it goes unsaid that the arguing is subjective.</p>
<p>You were not arguing a point; you answered a question with a single word that carried no subjectivity as if your opinion were the ultimate truth.</p>
<p>I'm sorry to bring up such a controversial topic again...please forgive me and don't hate me forever. Here's the deal: I am applying early to a v. selective university and very angry because, based on academics, I am very highly qualified. However, nearly everyone else who applies is; as a result, adcoms look at other factors, race included. And I was the lucky one to be born into the Asian clan. I cannot hold my anger in any longer. I feel suffocated b/c so many people less qualified than I am will most definitely get in only because of the color of their skin.<br>
I agree with dustyrose, though. There are other ways to achieve diversity. And, honestly, why do we want diversity? To recreate the real world? Is diversity worth what is being given up for it? Can you imagine how many people must dedicate their lives to getting 4.0's, 1600's, and becoming President of nearly every club while writing stellar essays and developing overwhelmingly wonderful relations with their teachers only to find out that they can't get into their dream school because there's not enough diversity? At the same time, some people can get into nearly any school solely on the basis of their skin color...I fail to see how that's fair. Yes, it creates diversity, but is this diversity worth all that is being lost to obtain it? I'd like you guys to consider a question for me...how would you feel if you spent your entire life working for something and then lost it to someone who barely cared only because their skin was a different color than yours?</p>
<p>I'm torn on AA. Intellectually, I agree with Sodfather--skin color should never be a factor. But then again, when I'm looking at colleges, I look at the racial mix. I'm not saying that it's a huge factor in my decision, but the fact that Stanford is only roughly 40% white is a plus for me (I've been to other parts of the country and just been SHOCKED by the sheer WHITENESS, and I AM white). So for ME, if east-coast schools were less diverse, I'd be less likely to want to go, and acknowledging the fact that I want diversity and being anti-AA is rather hypocritical.</p>
<p>Another thing is that there are so MANY incredibly qualified applicants to the ultra-competitive schools. You're all talking about "equally qualified applicants," but that's nearly impossible to determine--beyond numbers and EC's, you've got essays, interviews, recommendations, all SORTS of impossible-to-quantify stuff. And most kids who even bother applying to, say, Harvard, would do incredibly well if they got in. So the notion of "more qualified" is...incredibly difficult to quantify, and fairly worthless anyway.</p>
<p>The job of an incredibly selective school is to put together a freshman class who will do well at the school AND who will add something to the experience of the rest of the students. So students who come from an interesting place or background, students who have different skills and interests, or, yes, students of a different race, do get a bump.</p>
<p>One of my friends told me that she asked about the importance of picking a major at a Yale admissions meeting (that was held AT YALE). The representative told HER that they usually don't consider it, but mentioned (among other things) that they're looking for female physicists.</p>
<p>Now, does the fact that I'm a girl make me a better physicist than a boy? No. But then again, I'd like to go to a school that had SOME other female physics majors (and my guess is that the male physics majors would also like that).</p>
<p>So I guess my point is...lots of people get unfair advantages, for lots of reasons. And in a perfect world, everyone would be prepared and informed and interested and qualified at exactly representative levels, and we wouldn't have to argue about the percentages of blacks and female physicists and Alaskans. But I want black kids, I want female physicists, and if my roommate was from Alaska, I'd think it was the coolest thing EVER. So as long as you want those things...think about what not having AA might mean instead of immediately condemning it.</p>
<p>OK, LAgal, and to answer your question...I've got a 4.0 and a 1600, I spend hours a week on my EC's, I'm slaving over my essays, and I do have very good relations with my teachers (though that's not something that I WORK at). And I'm white. And if I don't get in to Stanford, Harvard, or Princeton, sure, maybe it was a minority who took my spot. But I doubt that it would be a minority who "barely cared." I know some minority and low-income kids who are now going to Ivies, MIT, schools like that. They all worked very, very hard (as hard as or harder than I do), and some of them went through more than I can even imagine.</p>
<p>And here's the thing--I know that I'll learn a lot and have a ton of fun in college even if I go to >gasp< UC Davis, so if I don't get into my uber-competitive schools...such is life.</p>
<p>LAgal, race counts only if you fall into the URM category--Hispanics, African Americans and American Indians. And it is in the most selective schools that this has the greatest impact. URMs are put into a pool of their own in many cases much as legacies, athletes, development, employee kids are. Also kids who are celebrities or have some hook that the colleges want at a given time are given some leeway academically. </p>
<p>So you are in the same pool as most applicants. You will be assessed academically, and then holistically. If you have interests and activities that are underrepresented and that the school wants to push, then you will have an advantage. If your ECs and recs and essays are similiar to thousands of others, it will be a raffle's chance as to whether you are accepted or not. </p>
<p>So basically, you will be pooled with kids that have your stats, your resume, unless you have something that stands out. That is your competition. Not someone with a different or same skin color as yours. And this is the biggest pool of all, and more kids are picked from this pool than any other. It is not like your app will be put side by side with someone who is in the URM pool. </p>
<p>Colleges want diversity because it makes for a vibrant community. They need football players because they have a team and need some to play the game. If you don't like that part of admissions, there are schools that do not have football. They want legacies because they also bring a richness and continuity to the school. There are schools that do not have legacy preference. Your academic profile is important in that it usually is the first hurdle upon examining your application. But once you pass that hurdle, in many selective schools, it is irrelevant whether you have a 1600 or a 1480 SAT or if you are #1 or #10 in your class. That part has already been assessed. You now assessed for what else you have in your bag that the school wants. And they want a lot of things. They want artists, performing and visual. They want athletes, they want writers, leaders, inventors. But if at the time you are applying, you are the 10,000th piano player, and they have enough of those already, you are not really bringing anything to the table for them. The kid who works on a farm and has come up with some interesting observations on hybrid soy will perk up a heck of a lot more interest. And if that classics department is a bit low on enrollment, those kids who have done some classics research and have some Greek and Latin on their transcript and write about their passion for the classics will also get an edge. The 10,000th premed or poly sci major is not going to get the same reception. So you are not losing a spot that you really never had to begin with to someone only because of skin color. There are thousands of reasons why you are not going to get the spot.</p>
<p>Entropicgirl and Jamimom, first of all, thank you! You have truly made me see AA in a new light and I think I am beginning to better understand those who support it. I better understand the need for diversity, too.
I had heard all the facts that y'all said, but in isolation, so they had made no sense. Ok, this is probably a really bad reason to start such a controversial thread, but the stress of college apps is killing me. Everything I thought would work in my favor at one point, I have now discovered will work against me; as you can tell, I am highly vexed. I needed a place to vent (and kinda hoped that others in my situation would do the same), but, in doing so, I have gained a new perspective on AA. Also, thank you for answering without a condenscening tone and with great patience and clarity!</p>
<p>LAgal perhaps you should read this:
"Funny, but athletes, legacies, donors, special talents, geographic diversity, state residency, nationality, and socioeconomic class also function like minority status does in admissions. But, of course, that is talked about less because it is less obvious than skin color."</p>
<p>I don't think anyone likes the situation that exists with URMs being in a separate pool. Most of us would like to see it being a "tip" situation at most as sex, geographics, socio economics, certain interests are right now. In other words, it should be thrown in as a tip factor once a color/ethnicity blind academic review is done, if taken into account at all. But URMs at this time would not be represented at the level that the colleges believe are important if things are not done the way they are. This is a very hot topic as there is much resentment about this. I can see why there is, and it is a very inflammatory situation when someone who is from a well to do family and is in the URM category gets admitted over someone else from the same school who clearly has every aspect of the application stronger. This does happen, and causes enormous resentment. </p>
<p>On the other hand, we accept the fact that a coed school wants a 50/50 sex split, and will give preference to one sex or the other to achieve this goal. A male applying to Goucher will clearly have an advantage, as a girl applying to MIT or most tech schools would. When I lived in Pittsburgh, there were several girls I know who got some merit awards from CMU as they were in the engineering /science field AND were female. I knew slews of males who beat them hands down in the criterion for the scholarship, but it is specified for females, not males. And CMU has enough males applying in that field that they can make them stand in line and pay full freight. It offers bounties in a sense for the girls. In fields like dance and theatre, the girls take it on the chin. Look at the admission stats for male dancers vs females at Juilliard. It makes URM status palen. I know a private school that went coed some years ago, and it truly took every kid that walked in the door of the desired sex even when it should not have done so, and the kid did end up not making it--no big surprise to anyone. Once the ratios stabilized, the situation did change so that though it is still easier for one sex to get in over the other, it is not quite so drastic. More than 10 years have gone by, and sex is still a strong tip factor for admissions there, I understand.</p>
<p>I understand completely what you guys are saying. Actually, I don't think I would mind if, after color/ethnicity-blind review was complete, equally qualified candidates were admitted based upon race; however, such is not always the case. Often, race/ethnicity is looked upon before qualifications, which would explains why URM's, legacies, athletes, etc. generally have lower GPA's, cr's and SAT's.</p>
<p>Legacies at the top schools are now very close to the non legacy pool and if you take out kids who have other hooks from that pool, they are probably equal. The legacies that tend to bring down the stats are those that are also in the development category. Pretty tough to turn down a kid whose family has given millions in money, and much time in support to a school, especially when there are kids there with stats similar to his. And the benefits of accepting a few of these kids can truly outweight the inequity, on a pragmatic basis. Also everyone understands that if you want a competitive sports team, you need the athletes and you are not going to get it unless you make athletics a major hook. Many of these athletes spend major time at their sport and will continue to do so at college compromising time they could be using to study. Race/ethnicity stands on its own and many people simply do not agree that this sort of diversity is important in selective schools. But the schools disagree and it is their call. I have reasons that I agree with the URM selection process, but many do not agree with me. It is a very split issue as you can see.</p>
<p>"Race/ethnicity stands on its own and many people simply do not agree that this sort of diversity is important in selective schools. But the schools disagree and it is their call."</p>
<p>What I don't agree with in the above statement is that it was also "their call" before the 60's, and back in those days elite white colleges (meaning not the historically black colleges) used "their call" by blatantly discriminating against blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, and basically anybody who wasn't a WASP male. And many people back then and today criticize those schools for their past behavior. But it was "their call" back then. If the Ivy League wanted to be blatantly racist against blacks back then, it was "their call". So if you say that it's "their call" today, and that therefore justifies whatever they do today, then you strip yourself of the ability to criticize their blatantly discrminatory behavior in the past, when it was also "their call". It was just as much "their call" back in the old days as it is "their call" today.</p>
<p>The point is, just because something is "their call" doesn't necessarily make it right or good.</p>
<p>"you answered a question with a single word that carried no subjectivity as if your opinion were the ultimate truth."</p>
<p>It was a intentionally-stupid reply to an equally-stupid question. He posed it in a yes-or-no form, and I saw it fit to give him exactly what he asked for. Like I said, there are no objective truths in this world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is confusing faith with logic.</p>