<p>
[QUOTE=charlie135]
A biracial student at my school who plays no sports and has no activities was accepted into Columbia with a 3.2 and an 1820 board score. How is that possible?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you know he had 3.2 and an 1820 board score? If that’s what he told you, it’s possible that he understated his achievements (I can see why he would do that). If that’s a fact, I wish I had applied to Columbia since my GPA and SAT were much higher.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action for race doesn’t really affect me, so I’m apathetic towards it. I think for Blacks/Hispanics, AA will die down in a few decades, it’s more important for Native Americans, who are in extreme poverty and rarely go to college. </p>
<p>AA for gender bothers me a bit. Recently I was talking to the Prof I do research with about Grad schools, and I mentioned it made me nervous how selective they are. He then told me pretty bluntly that since I’m a woman in science, it’ll be slightly easier for me (since men dominate science fields), and that made me feel kind of bad…I don’t want anyone to think I got into a selective program because I’m a girl. I’m guessing many URMs feel this way in college. You can leave your race off the app, but not your gender.</p>
<p>okay, look, im kinda for affirmative action. Im black and not very rich. I worked my butt off to get into college. But im not gonna lie. It wasn’t all me. My parents, immigrants who barely spoke English, spent days with me teaching me all they knew. And Im grateful. But when you grow up in the kind of community I did, where blacks and minorities are struggling because they have no role models, because they’re poor and have nothing, you start to think affirmative action is a good thing. It’s easy to just say minorities should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” but this is nearly impossible without guidance. And let’s remember. The Civil Rights Act was passed in '64. Do you realize how close that is? That’s the time of the parents of these struggling children. And when parents struggle and can’t guide their kids, the kids fall into a cycle of underachievement. And that’s what I see everyday. And that’s why I support affirmative action. And I know what you’re thinking, yeah, she’s black, it’s easy for her to support it, and maybe this is true, but you know, I know plenty of white people, especially teachers, who support it too. And I support it for qualified students. But who’s to say who’s qualified? Are you using just statistics? Because that’s not what college admissions are only about anymore. Maybe that kid with the 1820 has an amazing story. I know an Asian that got into UCLA with a 1600 and a White kid that got into to Berkeley with a 1700. Not everything is about numbers. And another thing. Non-URMs say they don’t support affirmative action because it “takes their spot in college.” Not to burst your bubble, but this isn’t true at all. All you need to do is look at the race breakdown at colleges in the US. Harvard has the highest percentage of blacks in the Ivy league and guess what? It’s only 7.2%. And this value is in the high range. If URMs were filling up the spots for whites and asians, maybe you would see a higher percentage. So don’t blame affirmative action for a rejection letter. Maybe they’ll be a time someday in the future when minorities have moved past their struggle. At that time affirmative action won’t be needed. But in any case, affirmative action is not as prominent today as it once was due to many Supreme Court rulings.</p>
<p>I don’t really dislike it. I understand the reason for it and am ok with it. However I do believe race, sex, and religion categories should be eliminated from college apps.</p>
<p>Love/hate. </p>
<p>I understand that we do need to bring diversity to a college campus, and if there are two applicants that are perfectly equal and one is an overrepresented minority, and the other is a underrepresented minority, then of course you need to take the URM. </p>
<p>But, when URM status compensates for something else that’s when the hate part of this love/hate relationship kicks in.</p>
<p>“Affirmative action IS reverse discrimination. This is coming from a “URM” by the way. I want to get ahead, but not because someone feels feels sorrow for me for having high levels of melanin.”</p>
<p>I definitely know how you feel. I have enough native american blood to qualify for tribe status, but i refuse to do it because i don’t want to be looked at as a token. I want to earn my spot, and if that means taking Lehigh caliber and passing on top ten schools, so be it. </p>
<p>I’m for economically based affirmative action, and i’m against race-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>Sjdim, I understand your point of view and see the advantages of Affirmative Action. But, IMO, Affirmative Action just provides a place for racism and stereotypes to spread. It is basically saying certain groups or races are unequal.</p>
<p>“But when you grow up in the kind of community I did, where blacks and minorities are struggling because they have no role models, because they’re poor and have nothing, you start to think affirmative action is a good thing.”
It seems like your struggles come from economic difficulties. It has nothing to do with your race.</p>
<p>EXACTLY. You are putting yourself down in a similar way in which Asians on CC love to pick on themselves. There are thousands of whites in the backwoods of Kentucky or rural Alaska who have it way worse than you. Your problem has nothing to do with race. It has to do with socioeconomic class.</p>
<p>I totally agree with those who’ve stated that affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic factors and not race. It makes me a little crazy because I grew up poor to working class (depending on the kind of year we were having, somewhere between self-sufficiency and welfare), and I’m a first gen college student whose parents don’t know the first thing about college admissions. I had no idea about what you need to do to get merit aid and get into really good schools, not to mention I couldn’t afford things like SAT review classes, and couldn’t do any activities that I couldn’t take the late bus for (because my parents have never owned a car). It really does bother me that these sort of limitations really aren’t accounted for in the admissions process. I’m every bit as smart as people I know who attended Ivies. I just didn’t have the same opportunities and guidance. </p>
<p>That being said, this isn’t coming from a bitter rejectee. I didn’t actually apply to any extremely selective schools because I had my heart set on a school that was honestly a safety in retrospect. I didn’t really see that I could do better. </p>
<p>Please do excuse my griping.</p>
<p>sjdim- 7.2% blacks is a higher percent than would be at Harvard if race was not considered in admissions. I am not sure what you are getting at. Proof of this is when the UCs or similar state programs decided to ‘not consider’ race anymore… white/asian percents shot up and minority percents lowered.
So, in a way, a student that gets pushed over the edge because of his/her minority status is taking the spot of a more qualified applicant. The question we should be asking is not if this happens but is it good that is happens. </p>
<p>I agree with your other points, but think it just makes more sense to focus on income rather than race. It makes no sense why a rich black kid in San Diego, CA gets a boost over a similarly qualified rich white kid in San Diego. This is how the system works currently. Colleges should target under-performing schools and neighborhoods (which the UCs attempt to do) instead of targeting race.</p>
<p>Isn’t it true that affirmative action also benefits women? Since over 50% of the students at almost any university are women, and no more than 10% are ethnic minorities, why don’t we pick on women as much as we pick on ethnic minorities? It seems like women are the ones who are stealing your spots, not black people.</p>
<p>^^ I’ve heard it does benefit women as well. </p>
<p>As for the actual thread question. I’m apathetic. I don’t like it, I don’t dislike it.</p>
<p>The whole socioeconomic status argument undermines the entire goal of AA which is, when used correctly, to create a more CULTURALLY diverse student body to enhance the educational experience of each individual student. This, in turn, “levels the playing field” for more of the underrepresented minority groups. The number of these minorities is already quite small at the Nation’s top institutions and by establishing a tool that intends to “level the playing field” by using socioeconomic status, the numbers will only decline. I assume using socioeconomic status as the only factor will significantly decrease the number of minority students who don’t “need” AA per se, but I would contend that the majority of minority students who benefit from AA do not belong to this even smaller subcategory of students. </p>
<p>Another thing: I dislike it when people view AA as a tool that was created for the express purpose of putting overrepresented groups at a disadvantage. When discussing the morality of any device, you must examine the INTENTION or GOAL. Byproducts are subsidiary when dicussing the matters of right and wrong. The institutions that put AA into play, the government and minorities themselves are not pointing the finger. AA does not exist because these groups feel entitled to some form of reparation for the events of the past which arguably began the cycles of disadvantage apparant in this nation. </p>
<p>The system is by no means perfect. However, I hope that after the discussion and debates of today ignite the desire to improve upon it, that the initial goal of AA is not lost.</p>
<p>…That is all</p>
<p>The idea of creating a culturally diverse student body is ridiculous and perverse; universities should be institutions of learning, not social engineering. Moreover, nobody’s educational experience will be broadened if there’s a few more minorities on campus; indeed, it is to be hoped that such racist classifications will be avoided altogether and one’s contributions to society will not depend on the color of his skin. To say otherwise seems highly anachronistic and abhorrent. And your entire argument about the nature of morality is insipid; Hitler tried to cleanse Germany, but he is judged – and should be judged – on the byproducts of that action (namely, the deaths of millions of people). Thankfully, however, that is not what affirmative action is about, nor is it justified with such flimsy arguments.</p>
<p>op, whaT aRe yOu Like taLking about? Shouldn’t this be in the “Race” thread, anyway? (not that the AA topic is a beaten dead horse, or anything…)</p>
<p>Ibleedlbue: I actually disagree with your conclusion. Due to the inequitable social conditions in the past, certain minorities are much more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged than white people in general, looking at statistics. Because a group of low-income applicants would likely be composed with a lot of minorities, an AA system based on income would still increase racial diversity while providing admissions assistance to students who are truly disadvantaged. I don’t see why the President’s children should get an admissions boost for being black over the kid of a single white mother who works for McDonald’s.</p>
<p>I dislike that it’s done on the basis of race rather than socioeconomic status. It gives URM from wealthy backgrounds an unfair advantage in college admissions over caucasians that were not fortunate enough to be born into comfort and wealth.</p>
<p>If it was done on the basis of socioeconomic status it would work to help all those born into poverty as a result of events before them and beyond their control regardless of their race. More should be expected from those who win the birth lottery and have every advantage in the world than those who come from more humble backgrounds. Accomplishments should be viewed relative to the means available to achieve them.</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of affirmative acion because this is 2009 and minorities shouldn’t need help anymore. They aren’t crippled in their rights like they were. Simple!</p>
<p>Then again, there are several college admissions factors I think are stupid, such as legacy, but I won’t bother.</p>
<p>Last year, after having discussed this issue extensively here, I came to the conclusion that ultimately, whether you support or oppose racial preferences depends on whether you agree with Justice Blackmun or Chief Justice Roberts. </p>
<p>In Bakke, Justice Blackmun wrote, “And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.” In Parents Involved, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”</p>
<p>I find Justice Blackmun’s statement to be self-contradictory. But, that is because I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Those who share the opposite view most likely find that his statement makes perfect sense and dismiss Chief Justice Roberts’s statement as overly simplistic. That’s really all there is to it.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel that the opponents of racial preferences occupy the moral high ground. It has never made sense to me how people who vociferously oppose negative discrimination can nevertheless staunchly support positive discrimination. We opponents firmly oppose both.</p>
<p>Of course, my generally negative view of the supporters of racial preferences isn’t helped by my previously encountering countless instances of otherwise highly educated people committing obvious fallacies, engaging in character assassinations, and contorting the truth to believe what they want to believe.</p>