<p>A lot of my friends are telling me that you lose points in the process if you're an Asian because of Affirmative Action. Does anyone know if this is true or false?</p>
<p>The search function isn't for decoration, you know. </p>
<p>Excuse my above snarky comment, although if you search for affirmative action you get a plethora of posts, especially having to do with Asians. [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=262725&highlight=hate+asian%5DTada.%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=262725&highlight=hate+asian]Tada.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>its false. Some colleges have higher expectations of asians for their own reasons , but this is not because of affirmative action.</p>
<p>you'll definitely be at a disadvantage compared to other miniorities (ie blacks, hispanics)</p>
<p>Umm Tyler, Colleges having different expecations for certain races for their own reasons issss the definition of affirmative action....Just Negative Affirmative Action in this case.</p>
<p>What is Tyler insinuating if Asians are held to higher standards but not to help Hispanics and Blacks? Perhaps something more racist?</p>
<p>no, what i'm saying is affirmative action is meant to help URMs and doesn't affect non URMs. If a college is raising the bar for asians it's not affirmative action, especially if its not doing so for all non-URMS.</p>
<p>It could be viewed as diversity, it could be viewed as separating applicants by race. I don't really have any take on it. (it's not discrimination because in order for someone to discriminate, they have to deny them a right afforded to others.)</p>
<p>and i don't really understand what ur saying chron. could you rephrase it, and talk to me not about me....</p>
<p>But yeah, at alot of top schools it's harder to get in if your asian, putustho</p>
<p>She doesn't CARE if it's affecting diversity, her question is does AA affect Asians negatively and resoundingly, YES, it does. Here's my little analogy again. </p>
<p>Before AA, everyone has 0, after, non-URMs have 0 while URMs have +1. Now, 1>0, so URMs have an advantage, but that means that non-URMs have a disadvantage. It's like a see-saw, raise one side and the other side automatically does down by default.</p>
<p>of course!! black and hispanics have the upper hand. especially if their inner city kids whose parents never graduated hs and have decent grades</p>
<p>definitely, inner city kids w/o educated parents have the upper hand......</p>
<p>-but yeah asians are at a general disadvantage at a lot of school, compared to those who arent asian.</p>
<p>"yeah asians are at a general disadvantage at a lot of school, compared to those who arent asian."</p>
<p>Lol, yes, Asians are a disadvantage against those who aren't Asian. Think you meant URMs >.></p>
<p>In which case :) NO, they're not. Of course, just because we're Asian, we have the secrets to going to the best schools and acing the SAT because our yellow skin holds the ancient secrets that are unavailable to anyone else.</p>
<p>That's like saying, well statistically, Asians make more, while blacks make less. So on taxes, ALL Asians should have 40% taken away and ALL blacks should only have 20% taken away.</p>
<p>no their at a disadvantage compared to whites as well. You lost me with the last part.</p>
<p>charisma, i think what people are getting at is that so many asians are so well qualified, that colleges cant possibly accept all of them because of diversity issues. Thus, standards for asians may be higher</p>
<p>:? I never said that they WEREN'T at a disadvantage to whites.</p>
<br>
<p>.></p>
<br>
<p>Okay:</p>
<p>Statistically Asians have a higher income, some have higher than that average, some have lower. And blacks have a lower (in comparison) income, again, some have a higher income, some lower.</p>
<p>Statistically Asians have the "advantages" you stated and blacks the disadvantages, some have them, some don't. </p>
<p>Having AA by race is like taxing ALL Asians (regardless of actual income) a higher percentage and ALL blacks a lower one, solely based on generalizations, would end up unnecessarily helping some people and screwing some over.</p>
<p>not really, because taxes are already a percent based on income, people who make more pay more and who make less pay less. So taxing all people a standard percent,as we do now, is like AA.</p>
<p>[sarcasm]I'm soooo glad that there haven't been any other threads on AA. Good idea to start a thread that won't go anywhere![/sarcasm]</p>
<p>:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:</p>
<p>@ -Lurker-</p>
<p>See, I'd like to think (likely falsely) that the United States is a meritocracy; you work for what you get, not to please some ideal of "diversity" which cannot be measured by the color of one's skin. </p>
<p>Colleges are there to educate people; they're not supposed to be 100% a reflection of the world, which I'm sure college students realize, (not everyone IRL is Harvard-smart) they're supposed to be there to teach. </p>
<p>Suburbs and inner-cities are not accurate representations of national percentages (which IMO don't mean jack squat anyway) and people spend their entire lives there, 4 years in a "not diverse" (by your racial standards) isn't any worse than suburbs or inner-cities. Very few places are representative of averages, because they are AVERAGES.</p>