<p>People seem to assume that every URM on a college campus didn't earn their spot on merit and that every white or asian student did. If your'e going to question AA, why don't you question legacies and other college admissions factors that overwhelmingly favor whites?</p>
<p>I do! Legacies, athletes, and even giving preference to people in a certain state seems unfair to me. It should be purely merit.</p>
<p>After thinking on the issue a bit, I support affirmative action. I believe in a majority of instances, the black/hispanic student has to work much harder, and fight against a lot more discrimination/discouragement/peer pressure in order to obtain that "1500" or that "3.9" GPA. It's about culture. Being asian myself, I know, that not as much self-motivation is needed in my culture to succeed. We're pushed to it from a very early age by parents who consider a good education the most important thing in life. Now, what about the black male who's made fun of by most his friends for having a straight A average?</p>
<p>First of all, as a black male who attended one of the best high schools in Georgia, I can tell you that there was no discrimination, discouragement, or peer pressure that prevented me from earning a respectable SAT score and maintaing a decent GPA. The so- called "black attitude against learning" has been perpetuated by a media that enjoys sensationalism. People are going to denigrate and malign those that have achieved what they have not, whether they are black, white, asian, or hispanic.That is the equivalent of saying that the white male who was called a nerd by his peers deserves AA. That is a weak foundation for AA.<br>
I advocate AA because of a historical perspective. After slavery officially ended in 1865, blacks still endured segregation and discrimination. Racist attitudes were prevalent and prevented blacks from earning an eduaction comprarable to their white counterparts. Even in 1967, over one hundred years after slavery ended, Jim Crow laws still hampered the educations of blacks and other minorities including white women (who have benefitted from AA more than any URM). No one can deny the fact that parental involvement is integral to the success of a student, therefore how can a parent who lacks a proper educational foundation aid in their child's learning? Also, when that child has kids, how can he help his children? If your grandfather was a sharecropper, do you believe that the educational foundation he passed on to your father is even remotely similar to the educational foundation passed down to a white whose father was semi- educated? No.The mere fact that opportunities for lacks and other minorities were so meager in the "past" makes AA necessary today.
Finally, I agree with Justice Sandra Day O' Connor that in the next ten to fifteen years AA will be superfluous due to the amount of minority parents that have benefitted from the practice.</p>
<p>Vicks546 point is definitely acknowledged by me. However, I find it completely unfair that AA tends to view a race collectively as a whole even when so much disparity exists within a race. There are rich blacks and poor asians and whites as well. A lot of people seem to have this misconception that asians are rich, after all, their median income is higher than that of whites, right? Wrong. The greatest misconception with the median income in the United States comes from the fact that statistically speaking, the average asian household has more members working, thus contributing to the higher median income of asian households. There are hardworking people in every race and there are those that don't work as hard as well. I believe that AA should be based on financial status rather than on such nefarious factors as race. AA will never be fair. It is a cure worst than the disease. Discrimination for the sake of diversity purely by race is complete bullcheese.</p>
<p>Economic action would be even worse for blacks and minorities. Poor asians and white would benefit the most. Look it up. I was a proponent until I found out this fact.</p>
<p>if you are asian and looking for some help in college admissions, try to apply to schools in the south and schools that usually don't have a lot of asians, like vanderbilt.</p>
<p>Let me ask you, as collegeconfidential forum members what do you think that the word qualified means? If you define qualified as having structured you lives so as to improve your chances at admission to "elite" colleges and universities, then yes you are more qualified than under-represented minorities. The fact remains that high scores on aptitude tests are indicative of effort on the part of test taker, in preparing for those tests. Similarily a string of club memberships indicates nothing more than a desire to attend a college. The entire membership of this farce of a forum overemphasizes a series of meaningless endeavours and twists it into "qualified".</p>
<p>how would u define qualify? I don't think being a certain race counts.</p>
<p>anyone read Gatekeepers? This guy(from the new York TImes I think) essentially shadowed an admisisons officer for Weslyan. One of hte applicants the officer read had an average if not so stellar application. but he saw he/she was a minority (hispanic I think) and gave him/her special consideration( siad he/she was a priority student). THe facts are a tad fuzzy (I read it a while ago) so if anyone read this please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems, at least at Wesylan, you are given special privelage jst for bieng a certian race. I tihnk the whole idea that you are helping the impoverished HIspanic and African American communinty have a shot at success is baloney; there are many whites and asians and others who are just as poor and impoverished. And the idea of this helping to diversify the campus seems kinda stupid to me. liek the previous poster said, who is qualified should be admitted to college, not someone who is a certain race.
BTW, I;m not saying a black or hispanic perosn is admitted just because of their race, but to give precednece to them just because of their race cries racism to me.</p>
<p>I'm Asian and I take offense to the idea that all asians who oppose AA are just anal bookworms obsessed with getting into Yale or Harvard. I'm aiming for an academic college in texas so don't have to play the application game as much as some. But even if I did, I oppose AA on basis of principle (not because it would hurt me).</p>
<p>AA is wrong. Applications shouldn't even include your name, gender, race, or address. They should have a number ID and all the other stuff as usual like stats, EC's, recs, essays...
College isn't a game, and people shouldn't get in just because someone feels sorry for them. You earn your way in, and if that means the end result is a college with 70% asian males, so what. This isn't high school, it's optional and if you want to get into the best then you have to compete, because everyone doesn't deserve the best.</p>
<p>You assume that there is merit in what you have accomplished, is there not merit in personal accomplishments, is there not merit outside of SATs and GPA. The fact of the matter is that you define merit too narrowly and this results in a distorted view of what it means to be qualified. Differentiating between someone with 1400 and 3.8 vs. 1470 and 3.9 is idiotic. Merit is a subjective word, one with multiple meanings.</p>
<p>Although I do not advocate blatant usage of race in admissions decisions, I do think it is advisable to take into account other sources of merit outside of SATs and GPA. That being said I also understand the inequity in coming from a statiscally over-qualified group. Merit should be based on the person rather than the race, however it is sometimes difficult to account for adversity when not factoring in race. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.</p>
<p>A college with 70 percent Asian males would only be defensible if you viewed education as a process where mechanics added a discrete product to empty skulls, with supposedly better product and better mechanics at the "better" colleges.</p>
<p>This model does not map to reality.</p>
<p>Here is how I define merit:
Yes I beelive academic strenght plays a key role. But other things do as well. Leadership for one. Tired so I can think of more later. I think the college should look at the person as a whole(not just academics) and determine if that person would flourish at the college. </p>
<p>Hard work, integrity, and compassion are my 3 key factors for merit. </p>
<p>The evidence of those can really depends. Academics can help determine diligence but other factors can too. Like working a part time job to help feed your family or doing well in school despite discouraging factors(living in a poor neighborhood or being in a not so stellar school). </p>
<p>Integrity can be seen in what a person has and has not done. is there evidence of him making decisions that were right but hurt him? Has he been elected to a position that woudl demand integrity? I think this can be very subjective so the best indicator would be recommendations combined with extracurricular activities.</p>
<p>Compassion can be especially hard to tell because peopel can pad their EC's so it appears they have this quality. Again, I say fall back on what the person has and has not done. Does he help out those in the classroom( if academics is his thing)? Does he regularly volunteer for the soup kitchen or other humanitarian effort? Again, I think a teacher recommendation is a important factor in determining a person's level of compassion(although it is biased in itself as well). Interviews also can indicate a person's sincerity and compassion</p>
<p>how do YOU define merit chrisscare? To simply say it is subjective and therefore say my definition is idiotic is in itself idiotic. I can't find any posts where you actually define it(only where you attack another's defintion). Sorry if you did. I'll retract this comment if u can find it for me :-P</p>
<p>TheDad, do you think that is how we view college? Colelge is a time to grow as a person. That iis throuhg basic instruction from teachers, social and even academic growth through your peers, and plain maturity thorugh the college experience. I just flat out disagree that admitting someone who is a certain race simply for hte sake of him being that race is just or fair. ( I realize that the URM's have qualifiications as well, but by defintion of AA, their race determines their admittance to many colleges</p>
<p>You assume that there is a clearly defined methodology to merit. Merit isn't a tangible entity that can be easily identified. Clearly academics should be paramount in admissions decisions to what are predominantly academic institutions but I find flaw in your argument. To say that merit is a numerical value which is calculated as a function of factor x,y,z is beyond my comprehension. Merit is a matter of circumstance which is why the universities look at race in order to account differential opportunities and resultant discrepancies of merit.</p>
<p>what other factors are important in college applications? And I never assessed a numerical value to anything. All these factors ar e strictly qualitative. I'm not just plugging all this into an equation that tells me if someone should be admitted to a college.</p>
<p>How exactly does race account for adversity? A URM may be impoverished or he could be the richest kid on the block. looking at his ethnicity tells u nothing</p>
<p>As I said minority status is not the best indicator of adversity but it is the one the universities utilize and for better or for worse it is through this outlet that they determine adversity.</p>
<p>one quick post then I need to sleep.</p>
<p>wouldn't income level indicate adversity more than ethnicity would?</p>
<p>Yes I think that it would be a better indicator, if the universities were to implement it. This will not occur in the near future, but it would improve the current inequity.</p>
<p>If AA automatically granted admissions to every URM that applied to a school, I assure you that there would be no URMs. That is a common misconception about AA.
I also agree that AA needs to be tweaked in order to take into account certain issues such as median income, but rest assured that elite colleges take into account whether or not a minority has worked to his or her full potential. If there is a hispanic student with low SAT's and a low GPA whose parents are both Harvard educated lawyers, he will be denied admissions in favor of a dirt poor white kid whose parents never attended colllege.
Also, doesn't admission based on socio-economic status contain just as many ambiguities as admission based on race in its current format?</p>