<p>If you say that it’s unfair to assume that the 10 hispanic students didn’t have a competitive edge over the 10 white students (white is a bad example, by the way, because they have other confounding variables like social status, legacies, and money, which all help them, but anyway) in terms of “overcoming hardships,” personal statements, interviews, and whatever other factor, then I think you’re missing the point when it comes to correlational observations about test scores and admissions in terms of URM status or non-URM status. Although it is only a correlation, there is strong evidence that the relation is causual:
- The whole point of affirmative action aims to give an advantage (unfairly, in my opinion) to people based on skin pigmentation concentration (if you disagree, then just ask the university to define affirmative action and it will be a similar but more politically correct phrasing).
- Observe the size of the applicant pool of the asian-american students to top schools such as the ivy leagues or mit or stanford etc. (and please don’t tell me that they didn’t get in due to a personality defect).
- The fact that hispanics are being admitted over other students with the same scores means that at least some of them were given priority simply because of race. Otherwise, you are claiming that hispanics have better personalities than white students on average.</p>
<p>My biggest concern about people who get offended because someone states the truth about affirmative action is that they tend to automatically and subconsciously justify unequal treatment of races by simply calling the “other” people that didn’t get in less sociable or less personable. I find this disturbing.</p>
<p>I hope this does not offend anyone because that was not my intention.</p>