<p>Merit only.</p>
<p>Comparisons can only be made against similar countries (ideally you would have identical countries spare for the affirmative action/meritocracy)... you can't say
U.S. + Affirmative Action > ****ty Country + Merit
and therefore affirmative action is better than merit. </p>
<p>What do you mean by work? And can you point me to some literature? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'd just like to take a look at the evidence against meritocracy.</p>
<p>"So let's say that's its goal. But what is it doing? It's resulting in individuals of certain ethnicities supplanting better-qualified individuals of other ethnicities."</p>
<p>Why do you assume that they are lesser-qualified than those of overrepresented ethnicities? Because SATs and such are the overall qualifications of admissions?
I suggest reading this article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/education/27grad.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/education/27grad.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>I know it's just one example, but I hope it shows you that it's wrong to assume that those admitted instead of white/asian/whatever are less qualified.
I think diversity, seen through a financial sense, is most beneficial.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you assume that they are lesser-qualified than those of overrepresented ethnicities? Because SATs and such are the overall qualifications of admissions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quit this piece of tired rhetoric; it's become a cliche. Unless there's an inverse correlation between SAT and the rest of an application (GPA, EC's, Essay's), chances are, the higher SAT scorer is the stronger applicant. There's no reason to assume there's an inverse correlation--in fact, I'd suspect the opposite is true. </p>
<p>If all we know is the mean SAT scores of group 1 and group 2, with group 1's significantly higher than group 2's, and acceptance rates for the two groups are equal... we'd can look for some discrimination at work against group 1, because there's no reason to think that the non-SAT portion of the applications of group 2 are superior, as there's no inverse correlation between SAT and rest of application. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know it's just one example, but I hope it shows you that it's wrong to assume that those admitted instead of white/asian/whatever are less qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wonder why there aren't pieces on stellar Asian students who didn't get into their top school likely because of affirmative action? Oh yeah that's right, that would result in vitriol directed towards journalists. Feel good motivational stories are so much better for the masses.</p>
<p>"I wonder why there aren't pieces on stellar Asian students who didn't get into their top school likely because of affirmative action? Oh yeah that's right, that would result in vitriol directed towards journalists. Feel good motivational stories are so much better for the masses."</p>
<p>There are: Little</a> Asia on the Hill - New York Times</p>
<p>But that's not the point.</p>
<p>"Unless there's an inverse correlation between SAT and the rest of an application (GPA, EC's, Essay's), chances are, the higher SAT scorer is the stronger applicant. There's no reason to assume there's an inverse correlation--in fact, I'd suspect the opposite is true."</p>
<p>Of course not. But WHY is one applicant's score lower than another's? Schools don't just look at numbers, or else there would be no need for an admissions committee - you'd just need a computer to filter out the lower scores. There would be no need for essays, recommendations, etc. </p>
<p>"If all we know is the mean SAT scores of group 1 and group 2, with group 1's significantly higher than group 2's, and acceptance rates for the two groups are equal... we'd can look for some discrimination at work against group 1, because there's no reason to think that the non-SAT portion of the applications of group 2 are superior, as there's no inverse correlation between SAT and rest of application."</p>
<p>If so, why do we have a non-SAT portion of applications?
According to you, there is no need for it, since strong SAT scores indicate a stronger applicant.</p>
<p>It's all about context.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course not. But WHY is one applicant's score lower than another's? Schools don't just look at numbers, or else there would be no need for an admissions committee - you'd just need a computer to filter out the lower scores. There would be no need for essays, recommendations, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I said chances are. Let's say me and you are playing a game. We each get two random numbers from 1-10, and whoever gets a higher sum resulting from the two numbers wins. Your first random number is an 8 and mine is a 2. We pause before drawing our second numbers. Chances are, you will have the higher sum, since we don't know the second numbers, and expect no inverse correlation between the first and second draws. </p>
<p>The first number metaphorizes to SATs and the second number "the rest of the application." </p>
<p>If you have two randomly selected groups of people applying for college, you have no reason to assume the two groups are anything but roughly equal in caliber. But let's say you have two groups of people and you know one group has much stronger SATs. Why would then we assume the second group has a stronger "rest of application"? We wouldn't, everything else should still be the same, therefore the first group is the stronger applicant pool by virtue of the SATs.</p>
<p>quaere,</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Holistic review is nothing new. I dislike how pro-racial preference people often refer to it as if it were a recent phenomenon. It is the descendant of the biased admissions system that the Ivy Leagues developed before World War II to cap Jewish enrollment. What’s new about that or even praiseworthy?
[/quote]
YES. Thank you. This is exactly the idea behind AA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The idea behind affirmative action is to cap Jewish enrollment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
AA systems have been in place for years, used to ensure the overrepresentation of white students (predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestants) in places of higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From a factual standpoint, your statement is not correct. As Jonathan Yardley notes in his review of When Affirmative Action Was White, “The goal of Southern Democrats was to deny the benefits of [federal social welfare, the GI bill, etc] to blacks, not to create an ‘affirmative action’ program for whites…[They] weren't affirming anything; they were denying blacks -- Southern blacks most specifically -- the benefits of federal programs that, had those benefits been extended to them, might have helped them overcome generations of discrimination and move into the American mainstream.”</p>
<p>Agent of Sense is right on the money. And another thing to think about...</p>
<p>There's an important difference between less qualified and un*qualified. Top schools don't have room for every candidate who's qualified to attend; there's an oft-cited statistic on CC that Harvard rejects 80% of applicants who meet their academic standards. They need to find some way of narrowing down the pool. Yes, they could just accept the top 1,500 students based on stats - but they'd end up with a fairly monotonic freshman class. So they make choices to accept students who may not be the *most qualified based on SAT and GPA, but who bring something intangible and invaluable to the campus community. Affirmative action is just another way of narrowing that pool and enriching the student body, one that also serves the admirable goal of righting past wrongs.</p>
<p>It's not as though they're turning away 2400/36/4.0 white students to admit students of color who can't do the work. They're admitting students of color who may be 2200/34/3.85, who may not have the same accomplishments because they haven't had the same opportunities and support, but whose applications suggest that they would be just as capable of succeeding given the chance. (And they also admit students of all races who have similar stats but bring something else to the table: they're from Montana, they're a legacy, they play football or contrabassoon. Yet no one argues that those students were admitted unfairly, in policies that discriminate against non-contrabassoonists with higher stats.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm simply saying, you can't have it both ways. Either applications are reviewed on nothing but merit, and we'll have hundreds of kids from the Northeast and California filling our top schools or we can consider applications as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To borrow a phrase from CC member IsleBoy, “this is a false dichotomy.” How do you classify an application that asks for SAT score, GPA, essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations? This application includes subjective criteria, so it is not purely merit-based. Yet, this application does not ask for gender or race, so it is not a “whole” application. Indeed, this hypothetical application makes it clear that your binary classification system is not exhaustive (i.e. it is flawed.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ironically when it was being done to push Jews out of the Ivies, and to allow women some of the advantages usually afforded to males -- there was little uproar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you’re forgetting that prior to World War II, the powers that be didn’t give one hoot about Jews (rightly) complaining about anti-Semitism.</p>
<p>Why do you need race to “narrow down the pool” and provide “diversity?” What makes it so much better than an essay, demonstrated excellence in extracurriculars, recommendations, and so forth?</p>
<p>fabrizio,</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea behind affirmative action is to cap Jewish enrollment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. The idea behind affirmative action is that certain segments of society have already been benefiting from biased admissions policies for years, and that the way to rectify that is by implementing new policies that counterbalance those old biases.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From a factual standpoint, your statement is not correct. As Jonathan Yardley notes in his review of When Affirmative Action Was White, “The goal of Southern Democrats was to deny the benefits of [federal social welfare, the GI bill, etc] to blacks, not to create an ‘affirmative action’ program for whites…[They] weren't affirming anything; they were denying blacks -- Southern blacks most specifically -- the benefits of federal programs that, had those benefits been extended to them, might have helped them overcome generations of discrimination and move into the American mainstream.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The effect is the same: through institutionalized racist practices, white Americans received benefits that were not available to people of color, resulting in unjust inequality. Denying those benefits to people of color is, effectively, affirming the superiority of white people by saying that they are entitled to more societal advantages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And they also admit students of all races who have similar stats but bring something else to the table: they're from Montana, they're a legacy, they play football or contrabassoon. Yet no one argues that those students were admitted unfairly, in policies that discriminate against non-contrabassoonists with higher stats.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that being black can be the equivalent of “bring[ing] something else to the table?” If so, then you just demonstrated the very problem that the original poster described with the opening post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea behind affirmative action is that certain segments of society have already been benefiting from biased admissions policies for years, and that the way to rectify that is by implementing new policies that counterbalance those old biases.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, two wrongs make a right. That is utterly false.</p>
<p>If I became a father and found out that my son was killed in cold blood, would I want to exact revenge on the killer? I’m human, and my answer is a resounding yes. But, will revenge bring my son back? Will killing the murderer allow me to hug my son once again? No and no.</p>
<p>Legacies are a different creature altogether. Granting legacy status is a donation-raking instrument; I'm against it also but in a different way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The effect is the same: through institutionalized racist practices, white Americans received benefits that were not available to people of color, resulting in unjust inequality. Denying those benefits to people of color is, effectively, affirming the superiority of white people by saying that they are entitled to more societal advantages.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying, then, that affirmative action today also denies things to certain groups?</p>
<p>I can't believe people actually use the argument that Affirmative Action is fair because whites used to have advantages over other races. </p>
<p>The people receiving the benefits of AA weren't around when there was segregation and outright racism in hiring practices.</p>
<p>Everything should be merit-based. There should be, and are, programs to help underprivileged people (of ALL races) to boost SAT scores, receive better education then the schools in their area provide, and things like that. Then race wouldn't matter. </p>
<p>But of course - just adding points to a candidate's application ASSUMING s/he was underprivileged based on his or her race is a lot easier than helping them earn all those points through natural ability.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action = Holistic Admissions. If you disagree with it, don't apply to schools that practice it--end of story.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you need race to “narrow down the pool” and provide “diversity?” What makes it so much better than an essay, demonstrated excellence in extracurriculars, recommendations, and so forth?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Two reasons.</p>
<p>The first, as stated before, is the goal of righting social wrongs. In the past, qualified students of color were barred from universities, or admitted in disproportionately tiny numbers. That has had a marked socioeconomic impact on communities of color. Increasing enrollment of students of color now is a way to make amends for a history of discrimination.</p>
<p>The second is the belief that there is an inherent value in diversity - that people have different experiences in our society based on factors like race, ethnicity, class, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and ability, and that there is something we can learn by listening to the experiences of people who are not like us. This is the idea that the OP was trying to discuss, albeit with a highly flawed example. There is not a single "black experience" or "Muslim experience" or "Deaf experience" - the idea of such a generalization is incredibly offensive. But it is true that those facets of our identity shape the way others treat us, the way we treat others, and our understanding of the world, and when students with different backgrounds interact with each other, it challenges everyone to question assumptions that they may make, rather than resting complacent in their identities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you suggesting that being black can be the equivalent of “bring[ing] something else to the table?” If so, then you just demonstrated the very problem that the original poster described with the opening post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes and no. I'm saying that race is a component of identity, and identity impacts perspective. White people and black people are not treated the same way in our society. There is still de facto segregation and discrimination. And that does affect the way that people of all races view the world. A discussion of a novel or philosophical work or newspaper article, or a debate over a political issue, may have very different implications for someone with a different background or identity - implications that others may not realize. This is why everyone benefits from having the chance to interact with a diverse group of people.</p>
<p>The problem with the original poster's example is the idea that there is a single black perspective, and that one person can speak for the entire black community; the idea that that "black perspective" is always inherently different from the "white perspective" which is viewed as a norm/default; and the extreme use of tokenism, where there is one black student who is only asked to speak about topics specifically related to his race, and is forced to assume the obligation of educating everyone around him whether he wants to or not. That's not what I'm advocating at all; that's an extreme and incredibly offensive scenario that doesn't benefit anyone at all.</p>
<p>What I am advocating is a situation where people with different backgrounds and identities are represented, to a degree that goes beyond tokenism, and feel comfortable sharing their views and opinions as representative of their experience - not a scenario where their views are taken as representative of all groups that they belong to, but where opinion is understood in the context of identity - and not a scenario where wealthy white Christian heterosexual males are taken as the norm, with all other identities treated as "other" or exceptions to some sort of social rule. And, perhaps most importantly, a scenario where people don't feel forced to educate others or speak on behalf of an entire social group. Do you see how that's different?</p>
<p>"If you have two randomly selected groups of people applying for college, you have no reason to assume the two groups are anything but roughly equal in caliber. But let's say you have two groups of people and you know one group has much stronger SATs. Why would then we assume the second group has a stronger "rest of application"? We wouldn't, everything else should still be the same, therefore the first group is the stronger applicant pool by virtue of the SATs."</p>
<p>You are probably correct about SAT scores indicating a stronger applicant (well, a higher chance that the applicant is strong). I think we can all agree on that, right? I don't know of any studies or anything that support (if there are or aren't, whatever), but the SAT test, if we assume is valid (that's another debate altogether), "measures critical thinking skills that are needed for academic success in college," which is the reason it's used along with the SAT as standard tests. However, the SAT test is not the only part of the application because it does not capture the whole picture of the applicant - the context.</p>
<p>"If you have two randomly selected groups of people applying for college, you have no reason to assume the two groups are anything but roughly equal in caliber. But let's say you have two groups of people and you know one group has much stronger SATs. Why would then we assume the second group has a stronger "rest of application"? We wouldn't, everything else should still be the same, therefore the first group is the stronger applicant pool by virtue of the SATs."</p>
<p>No one is assuming group 2 would have a stronger "rest of application," but YOU assume that it would have a worse "rest of application" just because of SAT scores. This is where you are wrong. If this were true, then there would be NO need for the "rest of application" because you could admit students based on SAT scores since, chances are, the "rest of application" is stronger. Then WHY have a "rest of application?"</p>
<p>"...therefore the first group is the stronger applicant pool by virtue of the SATs."</p>
<p>You can't base your argument solely on SAT scores when college admission committees don't even do that! That's the whole point of the "rest of application" because the SAT scores do not paint the whole picture. Although with higher SAT scores, chances are that group 1 will have a stronger "rest of application" than group 2, it doesn't mean that they do! If it did, then admissions committees would be mechanical rather than human. You have to look at context. </p>
<p>Quarere wrote: "It's not as though they're turning away 2400/36/4.0 white students to admit students of color who can't do the work. They're admitting students of color who may be 2200/34/3.85, who may not have the same accomplishments because they haven't had the same opportunities and support, but whose applications suggest that they would be just as capable of succeeding given the chance."</p>
<p>What is the measure of capability? Now, that's the subjective part of admissions...because it's more than just based on SAT and GPA.</p>
<p>Fabrizio stop being so damn literal. </p>
<p>Do you understand that things might have deeper meanings than literal translation?</p>
<p>We're suggesting that for the purpose of diversity -- it is within a school's best interest to select many different types of people from many different areas. If some of those happen to be MINORITIES -- <em>Stop saying black</em> -- then so be it.</p>
<p>How come I don't see you guys railing at the tech institutions that give some preference to women applicants? Do you think that's fair?</p>
<p>How about people from Rural counties who take less AP's because their school doesn't offer more than 3. No go eh?</p>