<p>I don't doubt that she's a great person, but it has to be awkward to be in college with people who are so much older than her. There just isn't much common ground for interaction.</p>
<p>Actually, now that I think about it. There is NO such thing as a perfect app. The above one is NOT perfect. </p>
<p>A perfect app would imply that the app would be 100% complete and thorough, and nothing else would benefit it, essentially, nothing could surpass it. Considering the above app to be perfect would be an egregious fallacy. Lets say if we added something like... curing cancer to it? Or maybe, founded a company that pulls in a net profit of 100 million USD a year? You get the point.</p>
<p>In any event, the URM status would still help. Here's a hypothetical situation, since you seem to like making up stats, I'll make up a situation.</p>
<p>What if there was someone with the exact same stats as the above, except they were Asian/White? What would happen if they were both applying for the same slot(last slot, only one can get in, remember this is hypothetical just like your person's stats)? Its rather obvious that Affirmative action would come into play here, the adcoms would pick the URM.</p>
<p>"URM making 4.5 GPA = Possible, 5% chance"</p>
<p>TO SAY THERE'S ONLY A 5 PERCENT CHANCE JUST MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT YOU LOOK DOWN ON URMS..and your a little racist..theres no talking to you..i hope everyone just starts ignoring you..</p>
<p>sentient, you're undermining your other points with these pseudo racist comments. its beginning to become an attack instead of a discussion, don't make the mods take your comments down.</p>
<p>Desi, do you have an inkling about what you're talking about? I'm not being racist. I have seen very few URMs with the a 4.0+ GPA. I'm talking from personal experience. I feel that of all the URMs I've met, 5% have a 4.5+ GPA, that would actually be stretching it a bit. I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer. In fact, I would venture to say that the number is pretty close to that with non-URMs too. In my class, only the top 20 or so kids have a 4.5+ GPA, we have close to 500 kids in our class. Do the math thats 4%, inlcluding non-URMs. I'm being VERY lenient. Please address my other points instead of making personal attacks on my reputation.</p>
<p>Again, about the perfect SATs. Last year, under 1000 kids got perfect SATs, in fact I'd venture to say the number is closer to 500. Out of the 2 or 3 million that took it. Is it a racist thing to say that 1%~ of URMs get perfects? Again, I'm being lenient.</p>
<p>SAT IIs, I do not know of a SINGLE person, URM or not, who has made perfects on 6 SATs, the probability of that is close to nil for everyone. </p>
<p>RSI... 75 out of 4000+. The chances are close to nil for everyone. Enough said.</p>
<p>Davidson, under 10 out of what... several thousand? Chances are close to nil for everyone.</p>
<p>I have taken the time out of my day to address your slanderous comments regarding my racism. Now, please stop using personal attacks and address my points. My comments are not racist in any way. </p>
<p>I really don't see where this discussion is going if you guys are going to resort to personal attacks instead of actually addressing and thinking over the points. Bottom line, excuse my bluntness, but if you can't say something intelligent, don't say anything at all.</p>
<p>Edit: I'm backing up all my statements. I don't see how this is an attack or being racist. But please let me know where I'm being racist.</p>
<p>haha..i've been reading this thread and it's funny how almost anything on the harvard board can develop into an AA debate. It just shows that neither side will probably concede to anything and the same arguments will be made over and over again. Personally, I have to say that I agree with sentient and HH's posts more than the other ones; from what I've seen, alot of the counter arguments against them are based on the argument that you can't generalize URMs that way, and many individual URMs are indeed qualified. While the latter is very true, I think that these posters are playing a double standard because AA itself is based on generalizations </p>
<p>anyways, just my thoughts..I would appreciate if I don't get flamed for this; I think I take a very moderate stance on this issue but from past experiences and observations, any anti-AA comments were met with furious posts and insults.</p>
<p>actually ronlivs, in my experience its pro aa posts that are met with angry college obsessed kids frothing at the mouth, outraged that the extra hours they put in at the math club won't impress an adcom. LOL.I think that admissions all boils down to this: if a college wants you, they'll take you. If you seem too much like the rest of the drones applying, tough luck, theyre not gonna want another person like you. If you are dispensable, they WILL dispend with you. heres some advice for those of you stuck on this (not all of you are, mind you): take a break off this website, do something interesting, and you wont have to worry about some rich URM who never worked a day in his/her life with 700 combined SATs taking your spot. because, as we all know, these are the ppl applying and getting into harvard. :)</p>
<p>It's simple. Don't like AA? Then don't vote Democrat!!! </p>
<p>The irony of it all is that most college students will graduate in support of the left....</p>
<p>So I guess it's just little passing jealousy thing because sooner or later, most people grounded in the liberal arts (like most of us will soon be) agree with AA.</p>
<p>I think the reason why ppl are getting so heated up on the issue is because the college process is extremely stressful, and many of these people come into the process with a very entitled point of view, as in 'I worked my butt off so I deserve to get into everywhere' so its only natural that when they feel as if someone is getting a boost that they are not, they feel cheated and angry. The thing to remember is that no one is guaranteed a spot, and that colleges have the right to decide who they want to choose.</p>
<p>I'm not really "frothing at the mouth." I do what I like right now. I'm perfectly fine if I don't make it into harvard, I'll be content with a LAC. What I am not okay with, is the accusations of racism in this thread, particularly sexydesi's:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"URM making 4.5 GPA = Possible, 5% chance"</p>
<p>TO SAY THERE'S ONLY A 5 PERCENT CHANCE JUST MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT YOU LOOK DOWN ON URMS..and your a little racist..theres no talking to you..i hope everyone just starts ignoring you..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...And I'm the one making attacks.
To be blunt, the comment transcends all boundaries of ignorance, it's in a realm of its own, you can take that as either negative or positive. I don't understand how you guys can throw accusations of racism without understanding the situation. </p>
<p>As flim suggests, I'm going to "do something interesting" with my spring break, I'm out. Have fun debating AA.</p>
<p>i was just looking at the earlier posts with kasanova, hh, seth blue, and others. Kasanova (pro aa) had some ridiculously racist and illogical comments in his(her) posts:
"O to Seth Blue I hope a URM like me takes your place at harvard and all other schools you apply too...maybe then you'll shoot yourself and stop judging people and being a red neck big mouthed racist"</p>
<p>"however i know many"urms" who dont hav my oppurtunities...o yea and i am racist towards anyone who thinks a black person wit a 1300 whose been thru hell and has no mom or dad and lives with his dying grandmother and tries as hard as he can in school shudnt get into a good school cuz he cant afford an SAT tutoor and cuz he goes to a school that doesnt offer APs. lets blow up all retarded whining whiote folks starting with that seth dude"</p>
<p>i was suprised that more people didnt respond to these blatantly racist statements that are completely illogical and contribute very little to the discussion. From what I see, they go beyond pro/anti AA but to a point where personal resentment towards the white race is seen.</p>
<p>yea, the person was obviuosly bitter. I don't see how anything i said was rascist, but i didn't respond cause i didn't read that. whatever, the idea is directed only at non-white races should be abolished. Whites and asians can be poor as sin too.</p>
<p>sentient89, I suggest that you read The Sociological Imagination now that you're in a productive mood.</p>
<p>ooo i see my comment started up a little something..oops..i still stick by it..film you said the same thing..he was a racist..but it's pretty much hidden..you're not an obvious racist or redneck(maybe who knows) or any of that..but u do look down on urms..simple..thats all..im sticking by it..Ron is correct...the arg is always pretty much the same on both sides and you guys are pretty much saying the same thing..OVER AND OVER..and i really did wish this would stop</p>
<p>In the end I am not pro AA..i think the economic/social status is more important than a person's race..but i dont agree with the comments the other anti AAs made..</p>
<p>Just for the information of the people reading the thread, there seems to be a confusion here between two different programs run by the Davidson Institute for Talent Development </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ditd.org%5B/url%5D">http://www.ditd.org</a> </p>
<p>One program sponsored by that organization, the Davidson Young Scholars program </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ditd.org/public/article.aspx?cid=9&mid=124&tp=122%5B/url%5D">http://www.ditd.org/public/article.aspx?cid=9&mid=124&tp=122</a> </p>
<p>is for YOUNG people up to age eighteen, who were admitted to the program up to age sixteen. (Formerly the upper age limit for joining that program was a younger age.) According to the organization's most recent annual report </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ditd.org/Public/article.aspx?cid=170%5B/url%5D">http://www.ditd.org/Public/article.aspx?cid=170</a> </p>
<p>there are more than 500 young people in the Davidson Young Scholars program (I know a few of them). </p>
<p>There is a distinct Davidson Institute program called the Davidson Fellows program, </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ditd.org/public/article.aspx?cid=1&mid=101&tp=2%5B/url%5D">http://www.ditd.org/public/article.aspx?cid=1&mid=101&tp=2</a> </p>
<p>and that awards HIGH-level achievements by young people, most nearing college age, who may or may not have previously been members of the Young Scholars program. (Think achievements like Intel Science Talent Search winners or U.S.A. Today high school academic all stars and you'll get the idea of what level of achievement we're talking about here.) People who desire to be considered for the Davidson Fellows awards apply for them by each year's application deadline. I do NOT know any Davidson Fellows in person, even though there was one from across town last year. I should be so lucky as to have a child with that level of accomplishment. </p>
<p>Just FYI. To answer the question posed in the post that opened this thread, no, you don't have to be in either Davidson Institute program to have a reasonable shot at getting into Harvard. But Harvard is not for everyone, as other threads in this Harvard Forum make clear.</p>
<p>""If I am an employer, and I know that many blacks entered colleges with that extra boost (read: lower standards), I would be less inclined to hire them because they had to cross a lower hurdle (given equality in income...and, as noted above, even with equal income, blacks have to cross a lower hurdle)."</p>
<p>If you did that, you'd be assuming that the person checked "African American" on their application--but what if they didn't? What if the college accepted them not knowing what race they were, and they didn't benefit from a boost? How is at all logical to make assumptions like that? </p>
<p>And even if they did check that box--what if they WERE "qualified" by the same standards as a white/asian applicant, and didn't benefit from a racial boost--then what? </p>
<h2>Really, how can you make assumptions about a college's reasoning for accepting someone, and then use that against them when considering them for a job? That's silly."</h2>
<p>Saxfreq, your statement was misinformed. First of all, though, I should note by saying that you are right: those who do not check off the box do not get preference. This is a minority, though, and I admire those who feel that their race should not play a card. Unfortunately, employers do discriminate against those people because there is no way to verify whether or not they did check off the box (and why take risks on important deals? plus, the majority of African Americans DO check of the box, so they should make the assumption). It is logical, though not ALWAYS accurate, to make such assumptions, because employers go by the majority. If you were choosing between two people to do a job, and one person worked for a company that had generally underqualified staff, and the other worked for a historically successful company, who would you pick? People might fall in excepting categories, but all the same, choice is driven by my logic.</p>
<p>And yes, the system is unfair to minorities who were accepted but were more than qualified. Once again, these URMs are in minority. There is Affirmative Action, purportedly, because most minorities NEED affirmative action. Yes, the whole idea is unfair to minorities who don't check the box and to minorities who are actually as smart as other applicants (in terms of learned skill).</p>
<p>Is it wrong for employers to generalize while making decisions (especially when these generalizations are, in a sense, enacted by the federal government)? No...to argue that it is would be silly.</p>
<p>"ooo i see my comment started up a little something..oops..i still stick by it..film you said the same thing..he was a racist..but it's pretty much hidden..you're not an obvious racist or redneck(maybe who knows) or any of that..but u do look down on urms..simple..thats all..im sticking by it..Ron is correct...the arg is always pretty much the same on both sides and you guys are pretty much saying the same thing..OVER AND OVER..and i really did wish this would stop"</p>
<p>Instead of just calling him a racist, why don't you point out in what ways his post was racist?</p>
<p>they're learning from bylerly, "If you don't like the message, attack the messager" something or other. And how many times do i have to say i'm not racist! Geez.</p>
<p>I don't see how you're racist. Compared to the comments by kasanova, your comments were nowhere near as racist. It just bothers me that the posters who have frequently accused you and hh as being racists fail to make any comments about kasanova.</p>
<p>and if I'm not mistaken, "redneck" is a fairly derogatory term for a white person...</p>