<p>I have a question....How does the whole Asian/White urms situation work with Umich-Ann Arbor? After the law suit thing a couple of years ago... didnt the process change?</p>
<p>"oh my god, VTboy, quit your whining. At Harvard there are still disproportionally many asians. and i think affirmative action in general is a good idea, although there's still the problem with socioeconomic discrimination (i.e. it is unfair that a rich black kid would get in instead of a poor asian kid). that said, if i ruled the world, or at least a college, which unfortunately i don't, i would severely limit the number of asian students (except japanese) because at least 50% of especially the chinese kids i've met in college are really really annoying, obnoxious and boring grade grubbers. now go in peace (maybe call me a racist in the process) and spend your time living a little instead of only learning and practicing to make up for that oh-so-unfair affirmative action."</p>
<p>I am not going to justify this highly racist and offensive post with a responce.</p>
<p>Pebbles says, "it's detrimental to those who are asian and white whose spots are taken by POSSIBLY less qualified URMs."</p>
<p>"Whose spots are taken???" Those spots aren't TAKEN by anyone. They were never anyone's to begin with. Don't you get it? Are you living in some kind of dream world that says that a certain spot "belongs" (HOW RIDICULOUS IS THAT?) to you, but someone else "TOOK" it???</p>
<p>The COLLEGE decides who they want. The COLLEGE determines the make-up of the class! There are no "qualifications" (as in: you MUST have such-and-such a board score). NO ONE CAN "TAKE" "YOUR" SPOT! Because YOUR SPOT doesn't exist - the colleges owe you nothing!</p>
<p>As for Sakky's point about middle or upper class blacks getting spots: You don't get it either. Corporations actually file briefs with the Supreme Court IN FAVOR OF diversity because of the international way that they do business. It has very little to do with money and a LOT to do with creating a racially diverse work force.</p>
<p>As for "social justice" --- one more time, as so many others on other threads have pointed out: elite colleges are private entities who can create their "community" (thanks Voronwe!) ANY WAY THEY WANT. They do NOT have to end up with an all-Asian or all-White class JUST BECAUSE you think that numbers (SATs etc) matter more than anything else.</p>
<p>Just for the record, I am white and my kids score in the top 98% of all standardized tests. Yet I am VERY HAPPY to see such diversity that their schools. </p>
<p>Besides - lots of those blacks kids had BETTER scores than my kids!</p>
<p>nedad You are missing the point. The fact is people are being admitted to schools and rejected by schools based on their race. Nedad the problem is people who support AA think that a rich black student deserves benifit more than a poor impoverish vietnamese student during admision. They refuse to base admission on socioeconomic conditions of a person, they insist that it be race. The sad thing is that schools with AA often don't considure poverty so a rich african student is given bonus points because he is black, but an impoverish vietnamese student loses points for being Asian, but gets no extra points for being impoverish. AA say that Asians should have to work harder than blacks to get into college simply because they are Asian. That is racial discrimination. Thats is exactly what you and veronwe are advocating. </p>
<p>Nedad they can have any criteria they want for admission, but what you are advocating is that colleges should be able discrimination based on race. Giving extra points to one race is no better than taking points away from another. That is discrimination. It is good to use a verity of things when considuring admission, like out of the ordinary EC, income, obsticals one had to overcome, ect, but you and many other people are advocating that race should be considure.</p>
<p>Advocating diversity is good, but advocating racial preference is racist and that is what you are doing.</p>
<p>As Nedad previously stated, no one has a right or is entitled admissions into any school. Private schools do not owe anyone a "spot" based upon scores and anything else. As you will see many schools will give you a range but all will tell you in no uncertain terms that there are no, minimums, maximums or cut off scores.</p>
<p>If you feel the policies of these schools (Ivys & Elite Lacs)are so socially injust and you are the lone voice looking ot take the moral high ground, why would you want to compromise your principles and attend any of these schools?</p>
<p>"If you feel the policies of these schools (Ivys & Elite Lacs)are so socially injust and you are the lone voice looking ot take the moral high ground, why would you want to compromise your principles and attend any of these schools?"</p>
<p>These schools that are advocating racial peference and discrimination during admissions are getting federal money. I am paying for them to discriminate and I shouldn't have to.</p>
<p>It is sad that many of you think that racial preference againt blacks is racist, but when is against asian you cheer for it in the name of diversity.</p>
<p>Have you even applied to any schools yet or have you counted yourself out and looking for an excuse before you even get into the game?</p>
<p>"Have you even applied to any schools yet or have you counted yourself out and looking for an excuse before you even get into the game?"</p>
<p>Your question is irrelevant to the issue of racial preference during admission, which you advocate.</p>
<p>Economic Affirmative action is better then race based affirmative action. I see no difference between the attitudes of Rich Blacks/hispanics to a Rich Whites/asians. If you want diversity via political views/ culture / attitude, colleges should put more emphasis on essays then..</p>
<p>Sakky said:</p>
<p>"Speaking only for myself, I find it extremely difficult, from a social justice standpoint, to defend a policy that grants preference to a middle-class or upper-class African-American over a poor Asian-American or Caucasian. Yet numerous studies have demonstrated that that's precisely what happens. "</p>
<p>You hit the nail on the head.</p>
<p>Go to the Parent's Forum on "Minorities" for a discussion on this topic</p>
<p>Click on:</p>
<p>Asian Americans applicants have the lowest admit rates compared to any other racial or ethnic groups despite exceeding the average standards for admission , including meeting the holistic criteria. Asian Americans are required to have a higher level of achievement when compared to any other group to gain admissions.</p>
<p>From the 2/22/01 and 4/3/01 Brown Daily Herald:</p>
<p>Brown University Class of '05</p>
<p>16,500 applicants</p>
<p>Asian Americans: 20.3% of the applicants, 16% of the acceptances
African Americans: 6% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Latino Americans: 7.1% of the applicants, 9% of the acceptances
Whites and others: 66.6% of the applicants, 66% of the acceptances</p>
<p>Asian Ams are admitted at 78% of the white admit rate. Whites are 66% of the applicants and are 66% of the acceptances. Whites don't lose in this zero-sum game. Only Asian Ams lose. They are 20% of the applicants to Brown and only 16% of the acceptances. Blacks and Latinos are the biggest winners in this zero-sum game admitted with racial preferential treatment. The ones who paid the price for this are the Asian Americans, not the Whites.</p>
<p>From the 2/12/01 The Daily Pennsylvanian (<a href="http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com%5B/url%5D):">www.dailypennsylvanian.com):</a> </p>
<p>Asian American applicants represent 31% of the 19,086 applicants for the University of Pennsylvanias Class of 2005 but only about 23% of the acceptances. UPenn accepts Asian Americans at a lower rate than any other group.</p>
<p>Asian Americans represent 31% of the total applicants to the U. of Penn. and yet only 23% of the matriculated Class of 2005. The numbers are the same for the Class of 2004. </p>
<p>Asian Americans are accepted at two-thirds of the acceptance rate of the entire applicant pool, even though Asian-Americans are the most qualified group, according to objective standards such as SAT scores and GPAs, and they also have to overcome adversities such as poverty, prejudice, language and cultural differences.</p>
<p>This disparity in acceptance rates results from the upper-limit de facto quota or cap the U. of Penn. has imposed on Asian Americans restricting their numbers. Without the quota, the number of Asian Americans would be much higher at Penn, and they would be accepted, at the very least, at the same rate as the rest of the applicants. </p>
<p>Despite the de facto quota, Penn still has the highest percentage (23%) of Asian Americans in its student body, compared to the other Ivy League schools, which average about 14% Asian Americans in their student bodies. </p>
<p>White Jewish students comprise 35% of the students at the U. of Penn. and there is no quota imposed on them. Source: Hilliel Society of Princeton, Daily Princetonian, 1999.Before World War II, quotas limited the number of Jewish Americans at the Ivy League colleges. Now these colleges have imposed a quota against Asian Americans. Jewish-Americans represent 2.5% and Asian Americans represent 4% of the population. </p>
<p>Excellence is being sacrificed for the sake of racial diversity at Penn and the Ivy League schools, which are using exclusionary upper-limit de fscto quotas or caps on the numbers of Asian Americans in the guise of "goals" or "racial diversity" which are all synonyms. Call it what you, it all means the same in this zero-sum game.</p>
<p>VT said, </p>
<p>"These schools that are advocating racial peference and discrimination during admissions are getting federal money. I am paying for them to discriminate and I shouldn't have to."</p>
<p>You are correct. Many of these schools receive federal funds to fund labs for research, student dorms, research assistants, student scholarships such as the Pell Grants, etc.. The research universities such as the elite state universities, such as UC, U.of Texas, and U.of Michagan and the private Ivies, receive the bulk of these governments funds, since they do the bulk of the research in America. A school such as the Harvard Medical School receives $700 mil/year in government grants mainly from the NIH, for research. HMS is private, yet it is beholding to the government for these monies. If the US Supreme Court establishes that HMS is discriminating on the basis of race, it won't tell it what to do, but it can stop this $700 million a year in funding. Although the recent US Supreme Court decision ok'd the use of race a factor in admission for "diversity", the private schools were shaking in their boots had the decision gone the other way with only one vote. They fear losing all that grant money which can cripple them. This money is your money and mine money.</p>
<p>Is it acceptable that colleges admit less qualified athletics, handicapped or musicians? If the answer is yes, then why colleges cannot consider races as one of the many factors? The colleges do not reject students because they are Asians or Blacks. They are admitted because they are Asians or Blacks with 1300 + SAT, 3.7+ GPA, 500+ hours of community services, leadership abilities and/or many factors.</p>
<p>God, we are talking about only 25 to 50 highly selective schools here. Is the civilization going to end because some 1500 + SAT Asian Americans are accepted to John Hopkins, Chicago, or Carnegie Mellon but rejected by HYP? I dont think so. I remembered reading a post few months ago about the same problem. This fellow was getting a free ride in Cooper Union but was rejected by HYP and MIT. He though his future was ruined because he is Asian American and was rejected by Ivy schools because of his race. Give me a break!</p>
<p>OK, colleges rejected over qualified Asian, Black or White students but accepted some stupid jocks, legacy, musicians, celebrities and rich folks. Is it fair? I think so. If you dont agree, then you should also talk about legacy and athletics too. They all come to play in the college admission game.</p>
<p>Sybbie said,</p>
<p>"If you feel the policies of these schools (Ivys & Elite Lacs)are so socially injust and you are the lone voice looking ot take the moral high ground, why would you want to compromise your principles and attend any of these schools?"</p>
<p>He/she is DEFINITELY not the lone voice. There many, many voices on this issue, although you may not agree with them, because it is politically correct to agree. This is an issue of morality, and racial preferences are immoral. There's a big difference. Many of these voices against racial preferences are muffled, simply because they are politically incorrect. Racial preferences didn't work in Nazi Germany or in present day Bosnia. Racial preferences of any kind never worked in history.</p>
<p>t1388 </p>
<p>It is very different to accept a student based on things like EC, sports, and being able to play a musical item and accepting them based on their race. You need to understand that. And colleges do reject students because they are asian that is the basis of AA. One one student is accepted because of his race, another is REJECTED.</p>
<p>t1388 said, </p>
<p>"OK, colleges rejected over qualified Asian, Black or White students but accepted some stupid jocks, legacy, musicians, celebrities and rich folks. Is it fair? I think so. If you dont agree, then you should also talk about legacy and athletics too. They all come to play in the college admission game."</p>
<p>The athletic, rich and famous VIP, legacy and even the geographic preferences in admission transcend race. By this, I mean only a black can be a black or a latino a latino. Race is IMMUTABLE, but a black can be an athlete, a legacy, a rich and famous VIP and VICE VERSA. Not everyone can be black, and anyone of any race can be an athlete, rich and famous VIP or a legacy.</p>
<p>The race preference tips the scale for admission THE MOST among the preference factors used, which include legacy, special talents, athletics, and the rich and famous VIP preferences in admissions. Nothing else comes close. RACE in many cases is the deciding factor for admission when the whole applicant's qualifications are evaluated. The race factor was, at one time, supposed to be only a small plus or tip when two applicants are equal, but that's not the case today, because of the huge disparities in qualifications between blacks and non-URMs or the rest of the applicant pool. </p>
<p>The legacy preference is often discussed. The legacy factor pales in comparision to the race preference in admissions to the Ivies, because the admitted legacies' qualifications are not lowered for admissions, simply because the legacy applicant pool is highly qualified, unlike the black applicant pool. It is all relative. At Harvard, the legacies have almost the exact characteristics as the rest of the admitted non-URM class, with a few SAT I points lower on their SAT I scores than the average score for the class. That's not the case with blacks admitted with the race preference. Another fact to ponder is that 6% of Harvard's legacy admits are blacks, who are children of the beneficiaries of race preferences at Harvard a generation ago. These black legacies receive TWO preferences on admissions, the race preference in addition to the legacy preference, giving them a better than even chance of admission, where as the rest of the total applicant pool has a 10% chance of admission. Now, why should an AFFLUENT black legacy also recieve a race preference for admission? This is absurb and this illustrates how unfair this race-based AA is. </p>
<p>What it all comes down to is the use of DOUBLE STANDARDS for admission or different standards for different groups. Asian Americans are required to meet a higher standard of achievement and holistic criteria for admission. They have to be more stellar in every aspect in order to be admitted, in terms of GPAs, test scores, special talents, leadership qualities, motivation, hard work and overcoming of more obstacles. This because of the diversity/de facto racal quota limiting their numbers to 17% in the Ivies and 15% in all of the Ivy 8 schools. This number or 15 % has been constant for a number of years, despite increasing numbers of stellar Asian Am applicants evaluated under any criteria the Ivies use for admission, yeay after year.</p>
<p>I'm Asian, and I support affirmative action. I think it's a good idea to remember that admissions at competitive schools are very subjective anyway. There's no solid way of comparing GPAs between high schools. Standardized tests are more or less crap in terms of measuring much of anything (i.e. First time I took the SATs, I missed 3 on the math section and got a 740. Second time I took it, I missed 3 again and got a 770). Extra-curriculars are also subjective because different schools offer different opportunities, and teachers at some schools are MUCH more willing to help students in this area than, say, most of the teachers at my school, who are largely apathetic. Essays are shaky too because they're ultimately tilted toward the side of highly gifted writers. Recs can be deeply affected by how eloquent the teachers are, and I've even witnessed a teacher resent students because they're smarter than the teacher. </p>
<p>The idea that you can definitively say that one applicant is better than another is ridiculous in most cases. True, there are some obviously extraordinary kids out there (i.e. performed a solo in Carnegie Hall), but these kids will undoubtedly be accepted wherever they apply, regardless of their race. As for everyone else, it's really tough to pick a handful out of thousands of applicants and say that handful makes the best class. In fact, you could probably replace any one of the people in the handful with someone else who didn't make it, and end up with a class just as strong. </p>
<p>In other words, get over this idea that an applicant is better just because he or she has higher test scores, a higher GPA, and a longer list of extra-curriculars.</p>
<p>One more thing, I'm pretty sure that most schools DO favor applicants who are poor but have risen above their surroundings, regardless of the applicant's race. All the applicant has to do is make it known.</p>
<p>Finally, I'd like to say that people who think they were rejected ONLY because of affirmative action (and it seems there are many of these) need to check their arrogance and consider, for a moment, the possibility that they just weren't good enough.</p>
<p>nedad- </p>
<p>Yes, I stated I was asian in the first sentence. And then obviously after realizing that you jumped to conclusions about my stance on this issue; without even contemplating everything else I said you assumed that I was complaining about its injustice. Instead of looking at my post as a whole for the message i'm trying to get across, you pinpoint one PHRASE, a little part of ONE SENTENCE, that you could yell and scream and whine about. (!!! OMG LIKE YOU SAID SPOT!@!!111RJWELJ1211!!!!)</p>
<p>Before you go and jump to more conclusions because of my race, I'd like to summarize my last post: "We should put ourselves into the URM's shoes. We can sit here and complain about how it affects us personally, but in the end AA only persists age old discrimination because they cause minorities in 'elite' colleges to be viewed differently from the whites and asians in the same colleges."</p>
<p>Now don't you feel much better? Sometimes it's nice not to be hung up on one word or two and automatically assume just because someone is affected negatively by a policy, they're going to complain about it in a selfish manner.</p>
<p>And to defend myself after your ridiculously emotional looking response, yes, I did say "take someone's spot". Of course, I said that in passing and did not expect someone to pick apart my every word or phrase. Of course I realize no one is guaranteed a spot in admission to the nation's top schools, that's pretty obvious. I have friends with 1600s who have been rejected from almost every top school they apply to. Scores are only a small part of the admissions process in this country, however the way affirmative action works, you must understand, is that in comparing two students with the EXACT same profile, it PREFERS underrepresented minority student over the asian or white student. So, yes, I summarized and did not try to be politically correct. Allow me to rephrase. "It is detrimental to those who are white or asian who must work harder to get into the same colleges that a URM gets into easily". You can't seriously deny that...</p>
<p>BUT I don't want to go too much into that argument because it's not the point of my last post. Since you took my quote out of context, most do not see that that was mentioned as a contrast, to LEAD into my argument about the URMs themselves.</p>
<p>"If you think about it, it's detrimental to many races. First and most obviously, it's detrimental to those who are asian and white whose spots are taken by POSSIBLY less qualified URMs. And the less obvious negative effect is toward the URMs themselves. " </p>
<p>And then I go on to explain my point about the discrimination toward URMs.
So obviously, since I mentioned it only in passing, that's not what I was trying to focus on in my post. I hope I have clarified myself and I hope that next time, you won't jump to such confrontational conclusions.</p>
<p>and veryhopeful -</p>
<p>you say you support affirmative action, yet you didn't mention a thing about it. You only repeated arguments that students from very different regions of the country sometimes simply cannot be compared with one another. That, most people would agree with. To a certain extent, test scores, grades, etc can fluctuate. There are different opportunities available to different people. But in the end you failed to address the actual policies of affirmative action. Affirmative action does not prefer kids who have had LESS OPPORTUNITIES over the kids who have had more, it is not an equalizer in any way. Affirmative Action looks at race and race alone. Two kids from an expensive private school. One is white and one is black. They have the exact same income and the exact same opportunities. The white kid happens to have slightly better grades, better test scores, better essays, better recommendations. The black student is accepted but the white student is rejected. That's what AA is about.</p>
<p>Pebbles,
What I tried to say is that it's a subjective process in general. In any event, regardless of race, legacy, etc., you would find kids who were accepted for no apparent reason and kids who were rejected for no apparent reason, and I really don't believe that AA will make a difference in the vast majority cases. Think about it: Let's say there are about 2000 kids are admitted to a school each year out of 20,000 applicants, and like most schools, about 15% of the admitted class (300 people) is made up of URMs. Okay, now out of those 300 URMs, a good number probably didn't write down their race, which I totally respect, and a good number are absolutely qualified in their own right, even if they did write down their race. 300 kids out of the entire country is a tiny number in itself. If you factor out the URMs who didn't write down race or would have been accepted anyway, the number becomes much smaller. But for our purposes here, let's just assume that all URMs at this school were admitted solely due to AA. That means that if AA didn't exist, 300 people out of the 18,000 rejected would get in, which statistically is about 1.67% of the rejectees. TINY chances.</p>
<p>Now, we get back to the part about admissions being subjective. Which 1.67% of the 18,000 gets to go? If you remove AA, it still won't make a big difference in the de facto admissions of applicants because applicants are not pitted against each other during the admissions process in the way you suggest. At the most obvious level, it just isn't efficient to compare Person A directly to Person B, make a decision, then compare the winner of A vs. B to Person C, and so on. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I never said anything about AA being fair. I actually don't think it's fair. BUT, I do believe that racial diversity in and of itself is a noble goal, especially in the Ivy League where, let's face it, many students have not been exposed to much diversity of any kind in the previous 18 years of their lives. I think it's okay to sacrifice a very small percentage of applicants if the sacrifice benefits the students who actually go to the school. And after all, isn't a university's main job to create the best environment for its students?</p>
<p>let me just say I go to a school that has a president that is very supportive of AA (in fact, he was the dean of that law school over there in michigan during that infamous (or famous) trial), and guess what? I LOVEEEEEEEE the DIVERSITY at my school. I absolutely love having a latina living next door and a 37 year old living two doors down from me. I l-o-v-e love it. And let me tell you from my prospective, my ASIAN boyfriend lived in a LATINO program house and these people are one of the best people here, the are hard workers and because of people who think they got in because of AA, they have to work TWICE as hard as the asians and whites here just to prove themselves that they belong here. And that is WRONG. They got in because they were strong applicants, and I'm including the blacks as well since I have a ton of friends who are black. If they were replaced with a white or asian, I would doubt my school would be as great a place as it is right now.</p>
<p>So, go ahead and believe that an asian or white has to work twice as hard just to compete with a "mediocre" URM, but you have no idea what these URM go through. </p>
<p>I am your impoverish vietnamese GIRL who probably got in because of AA through socioeconomic reasons and hardship and not because of race, how else can I explain how I was able to be accepted because believe me, my grades, EC, and all that paperwork were pretty much the same as the next person. and guess where I go?! Shock! An IVY! OMG! So, before you say AA is all about race, i don't think it applies to my school, because AA is not that simple cut and dry.</p>