<p>Just some perspective on affirmative action in general at colleges from an Asian-American student:</p>
<p>I think affirmative action does have some use in colleges, and colleges can do whatever they want. However, if they really believe in equality they say they do, why do they have to raise the number of under-represented minority students at the expense of Asian students? I understand that colleges want a diverse student body and not a class completely made up of instrument-playing science nerds who study all day. Yet a black candidate who is like that is considered much more favorably than an Asian candidate who is like that, and I understand. However, I bet such white candidates are treated much more favorably too. A college cannot have its cake and eat it too - it can’t have proportional minority representation, proportional white representation, and be able to treat Asians fairly in the admissions process.</p>
<p>I know Asians are overrepresented at top universities compared to the 5% of the national population they make. But so are Jews compared to the 1% of the population they make. Numerically speaking, Asians simply cannot be overrepresented as Jews are in any university as Jews are overrepresented at places such as Emory or NYU. I’m not saying that colleges are intentionally racist, but I don’t get the double standard here.</p>
<p>Simply stated, is there any reason why we should NOT have a directly proportional racial representation? We will be a failed society until we accomplish just that.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with AA is that it has failed to reach its objectives, and it is still so desperately needed.</p>
<p>All that whining is a direct result of a myopic obsession to prestige and social climbing and a tunnel vision in the application process. How poorly do the whiners fare at BYU?</p>
<p>Because of numerous factors that the college’s admissions office cannot control (differing quality of K-12 schools, racial discrimination in other parts of society, etc.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, it failed because much of it was applied at admissions gateways for colleges and the like, which did not solve the underlying problems.</p>
<p>That is exactly what has never worked. Hollow promises and more segregation is what has been thrown at minorities for the past six decades. You need to create plenty of role models at the top to show that hard work WITHIN the right context will bear results. You do that by creating the available spots in the only just and democratic manner, namely equal representation for races and SES subgroups down the entire education pipeline. Ultimately the despised quotas are filled by generations … As they should have been all along. Yes … we need to recognize that quotas are necessary for the common good.</p>
<p>Over-representation of certain groups in higher education is nothing short of the most abject failure we managed to invent in the name of justice.</p>
<p>So your definition of “common good” would require members of a group that has received more racial discrimination than it has practiced to be the ones who must meet higher standards than others, including the dominant group that has practiced more racial discrimination than it has received? An odd definition of “justice”.</p>
<p>Have I used the word higher standards anywhere? </p>
<p>Here is a concept for you to think about. Without the over representation of a single group, the elite students will expand the circle of most selective schools. This will create more spots for the prestige seekers at the top of the education funnel. </p>
<p>Since we cannot expand the size of each school, broadening the definition of the term elite should do the trick.</p>
<p>PS I did not understand your comment about the group that received the most discrimination at all, although I suspect it was a reference to the intellectually bankrupt narrative this site has seen repeatedly.</p>
Boy maybe it’s the hour, but I certainly disagree with that. We will be a failed society until we can stop counting every single thing received by every single group/subgroup and just live our lives as we choose. It’s like we’re all 5-year-olds.</p>
<p>I think one of the complicated issues that irks a lot of people when discussing affirmative action is how one defines need. I think most people would agree that there are many in this country who are economically disadvantaged or who have suffered from racial/ethnic bias and oppression. The question is about how colleges should address this in their admissions process. </p>
<p>I think most people feel moved by the child-makes-good-from-the-ghetto-and-goes-to-Princeton stories, and would not stand in the way of this. The problem comes up when hard working students, such as many Asian Americans (who may come from economically disadvantaged homes, or whose families may have suffered oppression in their countries of origin) have to jump through even bigger hoops to get admitted. </p>
<p>So how do we define oppression in our society in terms of the college admission process? Does a Chinese-American child who is poor have a disadvantage? Does a child adopted from Peru, raised in a wealthy white family have an advantage because he/she is hispanic? How do we define inequity? Is it solely about race? What about SES? What about academic environment? Many colleges that limit Asian admits, for example, continue to draw heavily from private schools. How does this truly get a mix of students?</p>
<p>I am not saying I am for or against Affirmative Action. I am just throwing out a variety of concerns that I struggle with that complicate the matter.</p>
<p>Also, I believe that Xiggi’s arguments, which I tend to favor, bring to mind the change of heart experienced by conservative academic Nathan Glazer years ago. If I recall correctly, Glazer’s came to support Affirmative Action based on some of the circumstances Xiggi referenced.</p>
<p>maggiedog, at this particular school the factors involving class ARE taken into considerations, so the needs of economically disadvantaged are presumed to be met, be the child Chinese European origin or whatever. As for a wealthy Peruvian child, wealth does not shield racism, and reactions in this country are far from enlightened. She may be seen as disavantaged, or it may be that her life experience may bring value to the classroom or community. While we read the Special Considerations to be disadvantages, they also seek to bring a diverse voice to the classroom, which race can do regardless of the wealthy upbringing. </p>
<p>As for Asian-Americans being under-represented in PUBLIC schools, I have not seen evidence of this, particularly at UT. The argument regarding Asian Americans and college admission is often muddied by the fact that the “desired” colleges are primarily private, and so will not be bound by any of these Supremem Court decisions. Is UCLA or UCB any less prestigious now that the Asian population is over-represented in the schools? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>This has had very mixed results in practice from what I’ve observed growing up in a Latino dominated working-class NYC neighborhood. Those models work…provided the kids aren’t negatively influenced by peers, parents, and neighbors who tended to either place classmates who ended up at elite colleges/careers on lofty pedestals as “supergeniuses” and thus…feel it is unattainable by “mere mortals” like themselves or worse, viewed them as “sellouts” to the community/culture. Observed/heard about similar phenomena in/from African-American classmates from junior high onwards. </p>
<p>Moreover, attempting to impose policies to ensure greater proportional racial representation of URMs taken to extremes was one of the main factors which caused the decline of the CUNY system and especially CCNY from being the “Ivy League/Harvard of the proletariat” when going to open enrollment caused the academic rigor to drop precipitously due to the need to greatly expand remedial course offerings at the expense of the once rigorous regular college curriculum because of the deluge of underprepared/unprepared students. </p>
<p>This, in turn, ended up driving away many top Professors and students to the elite private or OOS colleges to the point that by the late '80s/early '90s…the widespread attitude of “anywhere but CUNY”* was pervasive even among most working-class Hispanic/African-American parents of K-12 classmates who strongly valued education and wanted a better future “out of the 'hood” for their kids. </p>
<p>Moreover, the same folks who implemented policies which ended up causing the precipitous decline of the CUNY system after the late '60s also attempted to do the same to the NYC Specialized High schools. Thank goodness the state legislature had enough sense to pass the Hecht-Calandra law which mandated that admission to such schools will continue to be based on the results of an admissions test that may not be perfect…but at least provides some guarantees that most admitted students are able to meet a high minimal standard regarding their academic skills, teachers can continue to have high expectations and to teach toward their top students**, and the teachers/curriculum won’t succumb to LCD teaching endemic in most US K-12 schools. </p>
<ul>
<li>Professor Leonard Jeffries also didn’t help CUNY/CCNY credibility as that further strengthened the “anywhere but CUNY” attitudes during my middle/high school years.</li>
</ul>
<p>** On the other hand, this tend to cause a problem that’s the exact opposite of LCD teaching…leaving the bottom 2/3s to 90% to “sink or swim”…not good for kids whose personalities/work ethic cannot adapt to that academic culture.</p>
<p>This is an interesting point and one that I notice being played out in New York City a lot these days, especially in the wake of the Jeremy Lin excitement; there is a visceral feeling that white bias has a greater potential of coming at Asian expense that goes beyond even AA.</p>
<p>is it my imagination, or do Asians have no idea how “popular” they are right now, in terms of popular culture and role modeling?</p>
<p>No, it is about a group that received more racial discrimination than it practiced, not a group that necessarily received the most racial discrimination. Reading comprehension might help here.</p>
<p>I say after the last 50 years of nothing really changing, I am not really for AA anymore. We have colleges at all academic levels and prices that can serve every part of our population. Our best public colleges should be for our best students. I would love to see what our colleges can do with the students that really meet the academic requirements. No wasted money on remedial classes at our flagships and state honor colleges. Less students dropping out because they are not prepared at the level to handle the course load. The stopping of dumbing down courses so more people will pass. We should be putting our resourses into the type of students that can hit the floor running. </p>
<p>Now for those that don’t get into our best public colleges the first time, they can go to CCs or state directionals and still get educated. I think it would be a better allocation of money to send a marginal student to a CC than to put the money into an University education. Much cheaper and they are more likely to get the resourses to help bridge them from high school to college. They can go onto 4 year universities and complete degrees. They could even go to state directionals and still get a fine education. </p>
<p>The time for AA is over. We need to move on and believe no matter what your skin color you will no longer be held back.</p>
<p>It’s painful for me to see my respected co-members of the CC community struggle with the most basic issue in this case: Why did the Supreme Court take it?</p>
<p>The plaintiff clearly cannot show that denying some unnamed Bubba from West Texas admittance to UT was unfair to the Bubba, UT, the state of Texas, or the nation. So what is her complaint? Um yep … that her prissiness didn’t get in, despite having at her disposal well in advance the well-established and well-documented criteria set by the university. Why is the Court so hot to hear this particularly unremarkable case?</p>
<p>I am not sure why you would bring up his unweighted GPA, when class rank, used in UT admissions is based on weighted GPA. So, even though some kids may have weighted GPAs of close to 4.0, they still cannot get in since 20% or more of the kids in their schools have GPAs higher than 4.0, by taking several AP classes and getting As weighted at 5 or a 6.</p>
<p>That is really not the question, the question is should a kid who is in the top ten percent, but did not take any AP classes has a weighted GPA of 3.5 and SAT score of 1100 (M+V) be granted auto. admit at one of the best schools in the country? This is what comes in from inner city schools at the bottom of the 10%. </p>
<p>Getting back to your example, schools such as TAMS, Westlake, Plano, St. Johns, Bellaire and Clement regularly produce kids with 4.0 weighted GPAs and 2100 SAT scores who are in the second quartile. You have to consider that the last 20% of seats at UT are also for OOS students, athletes etc. So, by the time athletes, OOS, TAMS, Westlake, etc are done there are very few seats left, if any, for the instate non 10 percenters with good SAT scores.</p>
<p>Perazz, I think the question is given that the inner city schools already get the benefit of the automatic Ten Percent, is there a need for additional AA???</p>