Looking at the “affirmative action survey” thread, I was somewhat surprised to see that many of the Caucasians that replied were against AA on economic background (not surprised on race, however). I can see where you can argue against AA on race, but isnt one of the talking points of opposing it is that it isnt fair to poor white families? If someone could post a thread discussing this please post it for me, but I really cannot see how someone like this:
(Took things out)
Race: white
gender:
economic background: upper middle class
parents education level: mom - BA dad - BS
SAT score:
GPA: 4.0
class rank: 1
affirmative action based on race: bad
affirmative action based on economic background: bad
…could argue that that AA on economic background is bad? I mean, I always thought that the biggest grudge was that AA for URMs also helps the rich black and hispanic kids, yet then many oppose AA on economic background.
Please enlighten me with your very very very very competitive (pricey?) private prep academy and top Newsweek ranks public high school educated viewpoint against AA on economic background?
<hr>
Also: Im curious (sources anyone?) to know how many regular white (middle class non- competitive, mostly likely going to a nice university instate) public high school students view AA on RACE; I really dont believe anyone here could argue that the majority of CC members fit into that category (many plan on going to the top 25). Im sure the views would be very different then you guys since theyre not fighting (SAT classes, AP classes, EC fillers, private schools) their way into the most prestigious university in the country.
<p>I am white, upper middle class and I am a vehement believer in both economic and racial AA, and I know alot of my friends are too, maybe it's because I live in the Bay Area...</p>
<p>Tee06, I doubt that. I am also a white upper middle class person living n the Bay Area. However, I oppose any sort of affirmative action, though I admit that I don't know too much about economic AA. I think that everyone should have an equal grounding in the admissions process, so that no matter what your economic background or race, you will still have an equal chance to get into a school. I do believe that people shouldn't be discriminated against if they need aid of any sort, but I don't think that they should be put ahead (or behind) those who do not need aid. Although I am upper middle class, I need aid, but I will probably find that I do not qualify. However, if there is equal acceptance, then I can get in and get merit based scholarships, while those who are more needy will get in with need-based. By the way historic, was that my post you had?</p>
<p>be<em>a</em>star, I also think that everyone should have an equal opportunity in admissions, but they don't. An upper middle class person can hire tutors, take endless practice SATs, and spend a large amount of time in clubs and doing volunteer work, while a poor student (of whatever race) might not be able to afford a tutor, might have to work a real job instead of volunteer, and not have time to join clubs. I think that economic AA, if done right, could be helpful in getting the right people into the right schools. personally, I've never understood race based AA because it doesn't seem right that a rich black/hispanic/whatever gets a free ride into the school of their choice, but I think giving poor people a leg up is only fair.</p>
<p>Basically my stance is that I know I've had advantages that others have not had, and for that reason, I am willing to sacrifice my chances and lower them at top colleges in order for there to be more economic and racial diversity at those colleges. I think that racial AA is fine because statistically speaking, those races are underrepresented for a reason, and there will always be those flukes of the rich underrepresented minorities, but they will be few and far between. AA levels the playing field and gives disadvantaged groups a chance to climb out of their disadvantaged status.</p>
<p>Circumstantial disadvantages are not abilities, talent, accomplishments...anything. A bad circumstance is a disadvantage, but not everyone is dealt four aces when they enter life. It is not up to college admissions to "make everything right." Just because you grew up poor or with divorced parents doesn't make you better qualified than a person who grew up rich with one set of parents.</p>
<p>quote: AA levels the playing field and gives disadvantaged groups a chance to climb out of their disadvantaged status.</p>
<p>AA shouldn't level any playing field. When a URM has a bad SAT score and bad grades, they have a bad SAT score and bad grades. Race has NOTHING to do with it. They can level their own playing field by performing better. They can work to increase their status, not get it handed to them by some ******** AA in college admissions. URM should be changed to UM: [often] underqualified minority. And what are admissions about? Admitting the most qualified candidates. Even if someone is rich and spent thousands trying to get better grades and tests, they have the upperhand. You can't just use their status as an excuse to screw them.</p>
<p>And don't pull the race card on me. You're pulling it yourselves by stereotyping URMs - just in a positive way. You are essentially being racist against caucasians.</p>
<p>tee06 - I was trying to use an example to explain a bit of my post and not make up a false one like:
Race: white
gender: male
economic background: $10.000,000 a year
parents education level: wharton grads
SAT score:
GPA: 5.0
class rank: 1
affirmative action based on race: screw them
affirmative action based on economic background: I h8 the poor!
...didn't mean to target you because many of the posts were like yours. Thanks for the argument but leading from what GentlemanandScholar said, How would it be an equal opportunity admission process if you, someone who no doubt could have access to programs and such that would help you in your application because of your better economic status, had to compete with someone who could have access to such? Another thing: What if you were in a bad economic status which would equal= bad/mediocre school no/not enough money for college no prep classes no good clubs (think about it, will a poor school have a better Science Oly. team than an upper mid-class located school?). Wouldn't you want it to be considered? </p>
<p>But think about another thing: People on this board get mad over a black kid getting into HPYSM w/ a 1250 and slam AA b/c it benefits him. But what about a black kid getting into a good state school or 50 or high US weely ranked school w/ a 1250? Would you slam them then? From what people use to oppose AA in general is: I've worked so hard for my 1500 and rank I deserve to get into HPYSM and it isn't fair that someone under quiflied gets in!.... it is obvious to me the majority of kids here are BLUNTLY-selfish. There not even considering the fact that AA helps URMS get into (by CC standers) OK schools, just the fact it helps them get into the top schools because it just so happens THEY too are applying there. pretty sad.</p>
<p>"There not even considering the fact that AA helps URMS get into (by CC standers) OK schools, just the fact it helps them get into the top schools because it just so happens THEY too are applying there. pretty sad."</p>
<p>*They're.
Anyway...</p>
<p>No ***** buddy. But we're talking in certain context, that context being the best universities in the nation. And URMs are getting in because their skin is a different shade. If this board was filled with other people applying to state schools, then they'd have the same complaints. Perhaps also we would hear more about AA at state schools if the admission rates were lower. State schools tend to accept a good amount of applicants. They aren't Yale - Yale accepts 1/10. Also note the Michigan scandal a few years ago. Your post is meaningless.</p>
<p>I'm very much against race based AA. If you think about it, it is essentially saying, "We should expect all members of this race to perform at a lower standard." I would find this exceptionally degrading if I were a URM. </p>
<p>However, in my opinion, economic background based AA would be great. I am 110% for it, despite the fact that I am upper middle class. Either way AA hurts me in the admissions game, but I completely understand AA for poor people who have fewer chances than me. </p>
<p>Again, I hope I've made it clear. I'm not being selfish at all here. I feel it is wrong to give people innate advantages. I would completely understand a less qualified, economically disadvantaged URM (Or any race) taking my spot at a top school. I would not understand having a less qualified, rich URM take my spot.</p>
<p>If we keep up with this racial AA, whats next? Teaching URMs in different classrooms with better technology/teachers? Do I smell reverse segregation?</p>
<p>"I feel it is wrong to give people innate advantages."</p>
<p>If you have been born white in this country (and in most of the western world, for that matter), you have been granted "innate advantages" from that very moment on.</p>
<p>Anyone other white cc'ers oppposing affirmative action based on economic background? I've noticed that many asians on the board support it, even ones who are middle to upper class. Input?</p>
<p>If you have been born white in this country (and in most of the western world, for that matter), you have been granted "innate advantages" from that very moment on.</p>
<p>Is it really our job then to cater to people coming into our nation from other countries? Why is it when, all of the sudden, something is unfair for a particular race, that we as americans must come to their aid in order to not be labeled racist? Should our goal not be, as a nation, to find and nurture the next best leaders? Pretend you're playing, say, some crazy strategy game, like risk, only it's your job to develop the country into the most prosperous it can be. Would you favor those who were privileged and experienced, or those who just didn't get that "chance?" Would it be more of a hassle and risk to go after the underprivileged? Yes, not to mention ridiculous. You may laugh at my analogy, but the world is cutthroat like that. With China on the rise and other nations challenging our economic power (not to mention military might, with crises in Korea and the War on Terrorism), we have to continue to educate the most prepared. What good does it do to screw other qualified and prepared people just so we can meet quotas or make things "fair?"</p>
<p>No, I was referring to pre-civil rights segregation. The opposite of that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you have been born white in this country (and in most of the western world, for that matter), you have been granted "innate advantages" from that very moment on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's true to a certain extent, but Asians as a whole are proof that you CAN work your way up from the bottom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone other white cc'ers oppposing affirmative action based on economic background? I've noticed that many asians on the board support it, even ones who are middle to upper class. Input?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm Asian, so I guess I fall into that category.</p>
<p>Um... I won't get into race, since this is supposed to be about economic background... hey, i approve. if aa based on economic background didn't exist, i'd NEVER be able to go to ANY college. welfare doesn't supply people with that kind of dough. are we a threat to people with more money? maybe. i would think that if you ARE QUALIFIED, you'd get accepted regardless.</p>
<p>I am white middle class (what is with all this "lower"/"upper" middle class stuff?) and I am in favor of economic AA but in opposition to racial AA. Like sentient89 said, racial AA is a broad stereotype that is sometimes correct (perhaps even most of the time correct), but sometimes incorrect in giving that extra edge to one applicant over another. Economic AA, though, is applied on a case by case basis, tailored to each individual applicant. Having money, contrary to what Kriegz said, does not make someone more qualified or prepared to succeed in college, unless you measure success by the clothes you wear to class or the car you drive around campus. Having money just means that you don't have to work that 30, 40 hour, or more work week to help keep a roof over your family's head and food on the table and can instead spend your time at clubs and doing lab internships and studying for the SAT and going to SAT prep class and getting your application reviewed by your private school college counselor. I think that it is clear that impoverished people have a great disadvantage in this sense when it comes to college admissions and that this should be taken into consideration when reviewing their application. the only reservation i have about economic AA, though, is that it would make it necessary for admission officers to see the economic status of the applicant, which may interfere with the "need-blind" process or may backfire as they scoff at the student who might have otherwise been admitted but now they realize his parents are millionaires and he had many opportunities to do things that he didn't take advantage of.</p>
<p>True, you would get accepted regardless. Except for the fact that the word "qualified" also runs along with going against those with AA, the topic of discussion. And qualified individuals get kicked out cuz of AA</p>
<p>I think that colleges, for the most part, should try to have their percentage of minorities match more closely the actual percentage of minorities in the US. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want to go to college with just a bunch of upper class white people who bought their way into admission. I want a diverse mix of races and economic backgrounds, even if it means that these people aren't as academically inclined, and AA is the only feasible way to do this. </p>
<p>"And don't pull the race card on me. You're pulling it yourselves by stereotyping URMs - just in a positive way. You are essentially being racist against caucasians."</p>
<p>I dont think that I am stereotyping, simply citing the fact that A. Certain minorites are underrepresented in universities across the US and B. Certain races are, statistically, more economically disadvantaged as a whole than caucasians</p>