<p>ive read a bunch of ppl talking about affirmative action and have a question... maybe its been asked but ill ask it again</p>
<p>wouldn't it be reasonable for colleges to base whether or not a minority receives affirmative action based on parents income (say, those above 100K dont qualify)? i mean, not everyone in america is given an equal opportunity to succeed, but at the same time many minorities are very well off and at top prep schools.... and they dont deserve some special treatment.</p>
<p>whereas someone who had to overcome their background (no one in the family going to college, poor, bad neighborhood) should receive AA</p>
<p>Personally, I believe AA should be based 100% on socioeconomic status, thereby incorporating poor whites. I live in an affluent suburban school district in Cincinnati. Everyone in my school has equal opportunity, has the opportunity to take the same classes (and yes my school district is mostly asian and white). However, the kids in Cincinnati Public schools have very little opportunity when compared to me. Since minorities have higher poverty rates, AA would incorporate mainly minorities. I am a strong believer in AA, but I believe it should be based on socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>I agree, OSUforME. But I think that the determinant for AA should be a combination of socioeconomic status and race. Racial minorities don't just face economic hurdles in the world.</p>
<p>the problem is that colleges feel the need to have an image of having diversity, even if that means compromising its standards of admission to certain minorities who have equal opportunities to begin with</p>
<p>i agree with the poster...because my parents combined income is 80k...i got to school to a school district where student's parent's income starts at 150k...its crazy, they all come to school with bmws, mercedes benz, corvettes, and whole lotta stuff...i live in an apartment cause parent's cant own house, because house the cheapest house in my neighborhood is half a million and those are the crap ones.... SO I BELIEVE AA SHOULD BE BASED ON ECONOMIC FACTOR</p>
<p>Why do you feel that admissions should only look for "disadvantaged" people to favor?</p>
<p>Let me take you through some questions, and maybe you'll see another side to this. </p>
<p>If a school wants geographic diversity, should it ONLY look favorably on applicants from unusual places if they are poor? If a school wants to have more gender balance in its elementary ed program, should it only favor male applicants to the program who are also poor? If a school wants to have people with unusual life experiences, should it only favor a cancer survivor who is also poor?</p>
<p>What about alumni kids? Should they be poor, to "deserve" the boost they may get? What about athletes? Must they be poor to 'earn' the pass they may get on weaknesses in their academic record?</p>
<p>I am confused by the idea that a minority isn't truly adding diversity unless that minority student is also poor and/or can show a history of economic or educational disadvantage. That troubles me.</p>
<p>Basically, though, my point is this: Colleges want lots of things when they seek diversity--it's not just about giving a hand up to people whose poverty kept them from getting great SAT scores or taking AP classes. Students don't need to show why they deserve extra consideration due to things they couldn't help--colleges may give it to them simply because they find the student desirable. They want more of that kind of person on their campus.</p>