<p>Yes, also a good point, this is all logical/reasoned speculation. </p>
<p>I would add, that culture can-and prob. should be-taken into account to some degree in evaluating self-expression in essays. This is minor, but if the officer's are aware that they seem to be underrepresenting a minority they may take a second look at their own understanding of the culture behind those applicant's essays (and else). </p>
<p>Again all speculation and heresay, because in the end the doors are kept closed.
My only real point in my last post was that societal need should be taken into account. </p>
<p>Affirmative action tends to give me the willies. It doesn't seem right. However, as much as is possible, you can't let a segment of society get left behind or segregated. You have to recognize the histories and evaluate the need for recognition of personal vs. cultural accomplishment.</p>
<p>Affirmative action, to me, has seemed very hypocritical in that, America shuns racism, but college's really very heavily on this exact concept. I understand many people say "oh well they come from disadvantaged backgrounds", which in some cases is true; however, I take issue with the fact that unfair advantage is given to kids in the same area as me, which clearly does not benefit one race over the other, nor are the opportunities limited for financial reasons etc. Detroit kids should be given an "advantage" because their area is clearly difficult. Suburban New Jersey kids should not; this is when ethnicity/skin color alone is a ridiculous (not to mention racist) approach that will inevitably, cause spots to be "taken" from much more deserving candidates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action, to me, has seemed very hypocritical in that, America shuns racism, but college's really very heavily on this exact concept. I understand many people say "oh well they come from disadvantaged backgrounds", which in some cases is true; however, I take issue with the fact that unfair advantage is given to kids in the same area as me, which clearly does not benefit one race over the other, nor are the opportunities limited for financial reasons etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are different forms of privilege in the US. Pretty much everyone has some of them and not others. Being financially well-off is one sort of privilege. Being white is another. White men don't have the stereotype threat problem that can lower test scores (and blacks are affected independently of economic background). There's a lot of subconscious bias, and white interviewers (as most of them are) or admissions officers (as most of them are) will still tend to respond more positively to those of their own race, even if they very much don't mean to. It seems fair to consider all this, when you're not using a straight-up formula to begin with.</p>
<p>There's also a point to be made that colleges, in addition to their other purposes, are supposed to prepare students to function in society and the workplace as educated people, so the diversity of the student population should reflect, at least loosely, the diversity of society. I'm not really convinced by that argument, but I think it's worth considering.</p>
<p>You seem to think that all affirmative action entails giving a spot to a greatly inferior URM candidate over a white candidate. But that's a defect of a particular implementation, not of affirmative action as a concept. Affirmative action can mean that, with two equally qualified (not superior vs inferior) candidates, and one spot, the spot goes to the underrepresented one. It can mean heavy recruitment of underrepresented groups, or having special scholarships for underrepresented groups to encourage them to attend. Even a point system like UMich's gave non-merit-based points for all sorts of things that it believed would benefit the school environment, not just race. It's not such a simple concept.</p>