<p>sorry about the characterization then. they are minorities. but aren’t asian-americans also helped by affirmative action policies?</p>
<p>not at all. It actually works against us</p>
<p>Yah… I don’t really like the affirmative action. I think people should gain admission based on merits, not on what colour your skin is or anything that you’re born with (other than family financial circumstances or other factors that might affect learning, but NOT skin, or race). Okay fine,CERTAIN Native Americans or people living in really rural area and lack basic education services might be exceptions.</p>
<p>By the way, race does not work that well at UC Berkeley’s admission process. Approximately 49% of student population at Berkeley are Asian.</p>
<p>ugh… enough whining about AA! and to the OP, URM status doesn’t help as much as people might think…</p>
<p>Does that UC system practice affirmative action? I thought there was that whole Regents vs. Bakke case that made them take it away.</p>
<p>mrsopresident: </p>
<p>What you say is true and I agree: we are not the ones looking at the applications and it would be unfair to assume anything particular about a certain group of applicants whether they be URM or not without a complete picture. You did not specifically claim that hispanics have better personalities, but my point was that in order to accept your original premise that there was some factor - some special character trait - in the hispanic applicants means that those very traits were at least slightly lacking in the applicants who were not accepted, all else equal.</p>
<p>Perhaps the reason I can not agree with affirmative action even though it takes into account academics, recommendations, and other factors is because it still takes race into consideration, which is something we are born with and can not control. True, the hispanic student may be brilliant, personable, and a great person all-around. However, there are a limited number of seats for admission and one person’s gain is another person’s loss. The student who did not get accepted might hold a resentment toward the URMs or view them as less capable because they need help getting into institutions. On the other hand, people may be optimistic and claim that the URMs have better recommendations, interviewing skills, extra curricular activities etc. (all of which point to personability), which does a lot subconsciously to label the excluded group as book-smart or simply unpersonable.</p>
<p>I hope that clarifies what I meant. I’m not trying to be confrontational, I just think discourse is important when it comes to issues that involve race. And arachnophobia12, if you don’t like it, you may click the back button. haha.</p>
<p>ha… no…</p>
<p>being an URM really helps…the people that get really shortchanged are Arab-Americans, do not agree? let me explain</p>
<p>AA has many reasons, one of the primary oens being to compensate for discrimination that minorities face (and I am sure we can all agree Arab-Americans are a main target of discrimination)</p>
<p>well many of us would think that Arab-Americans are minorities…think again…according to US federal classification as well as colleges Arab-Americans are Caucasian.</p>
<p>talk about being shortchanged…a minority with none of the “advantages”</p>
<p>Why isn’t anyone concerned about the well-known preference given to legacy candidates? They would be accepted before applicants of otherwise equal credentials.</p>
<p>same thing if you’re somebody important or son/daught to somebody important. Same thing if you have a decent jump shot. It’s admissions to a privately owned and operated university, deal.</p>
<p>Yousonofatree has a point. Asians do not equal URM. They are called the Over Represented Minorities (ORM). While Asians are protected by Affirmative Actions in other areas, it definitely hurts them to apply to the top schools. </p>
<p>The person who started this thread actually has a point too. To put it more bluntly, the scenario could be - on condition that everything else is the same -</p>
<p>“10 white students apply to any Ivy League school with 2200 average SAT scores and 4 got admitted;
10 Hispanic students apply to the same Ivy League school with 2000 average SAT scores and 4 got admitted;
10 Asian students apply to the same Ivy League school with 2300 average SAT scores and 4 got admitted.”</p>
<p>That is the cruel fact. Check out the posted credentials of those admitted by any top schools (except Caltech), you will see the difference. Could any white or Asian applicant ever dream of getting into Harvard with an SAT score of 2100 however strong his/her other credentials are? No, unless your dad is an alumnus and has donated millions of dollars.</p>
<p>arachnophobia12: very well then. you are here by choice and so you must find joy in reading this. otherwise, you seriously need instruction on operating web browsers. you don’t walk into a video store and yell at them for not selling books do you? read the title of the thread. affirmative action is highly pertinent to the discussion.</p>
<p>odyssey: very true. i find legacies and other forms of perferential treatment - when based on factors out of the person’s control, including to what family people are born - objectionable.</p>
<p>i find it surprising when people give the “deal with it” argument. this occurs almost every time a discussion of affirmative action and its merits are discussed. just like any other social law/rule, it was created with the aim to make the institutions it serves more ideal. obviously where we differ is in our perception of ethical and unethical practices. i view AA as unethical. you disagree. or even worse, maybe you agree it’s unethical but still dismiss it because it doesn’t affect you. if this is the case, then i’m sure you would make a very poor argument about why it is wrong to murder someone.</p>
<p>I say “deal” not because I agree, but rather because it’s there to serve a purpose and it’s not a hidden ordeal or anything … everybody knows about it and everybody should expect it. Although I’m not really a fan of AA, i have a bit of an idea what the student body would look like if it wasn’t there - it ain’t pretty.</p>
<p>theslowclap: i don’t remember ever writing that it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion… i just don’t see why there is so much complaint about AA on this (and so many other) threads; the OP basically asked a yes or no question…</p>
<p>gomestar: sorry if i jumped to conclusions. i can see where you are coming from. you neither agree nor disagree with AA, but rather see it as a make-shift patch on an old scar, right? in a way we do share some of the same sentiments about AA, but i just find the original idea behind it unethical… maybe unethical is not the right word to use… maybe “not right” is better, specifically the race aspect of it.</p>
<p>arachnophobia12: well, i think AA is discussed so much because it’s a touchy subject that this culture uses as a way of covering up or compensating for racism, and some people find it wrong. some people think it works and other people don’t. i fall into the latter category. as for the yes or no question: yes, ethnicity does affect his chances but not as much as it would if he were a legacy or rich or famous. i mean at the end of the day, it’s unnoticeable and there are greater issues facing our generation than admissions to colleges. however, i think it won’t hurt for people to stand against policies based purely on disagreeable principles.</p>
<p>a diverse class really is necessary - it’s part of what makes Cornell unique. I can’t say I agree or disagree with AA, there’s many pros and cons to the issue (for instance, I’d like to work in a diverse company with people from everywhere, but I don’t like the notion of “lets pick candidate B because he’s black”). Lately, a bit of a move seems to be happening in AA; more specifically, race is only one part, income is also being looked at. I think looking at income is very important for Cornell. Lets face it, many people at Cornell are loaded, even the minorties … as my one black friend put it, “the black population here is surprsingly privelaged”. I’m not speaking for all or trying to generalize, but financially, Cornell doesn’t quite match the US population.</p>
<p>I think Cornell gains much more from using AA than it gives up. A white person saying “they must have given my spot to a black kid” doesn’t really work because it’s not the truth. I’m not sure i’d use the “make-shift patch on an old scar” analogy - diversity is something that’s necessary for Cornell, whether it be for race, income, legacy, what state you’re from, what sport you play, or what experiences you bring to Cornell. AA is just a small part in the big picture of diversity that Cornell has been developing for years and years.</p>
<p>AA is such a touchy subject because those who cannot claim URM status are not eager to see minorities get the sams opportunities. Simple as that. Since no one can say one race gets in on hard work and another race gets in because of their race, then we don’t know what the criteria is people are being judged on. Scores and grades, while the recognized measuring sticks for college potential, do not tell the whole story. It’s a bit disturbing to hear the “a minority stole my spot” argument when it could just as easily be their white buddy whose dad donated 10 million to get them in.</p>
<p>To the OP: Being Mexican or any other race doesn’t seal any deal and just asking a question like that shows you need some guidance that anonymous people over the internet cannot give you. These people are not admissions counselors and I’d defy any one of them to be able to give you an accurate assessment of your chances based on your race. Just keep your grades up and be optimistic. Wherever you end up, you’ll most likely be appreciative.</p>
<p>gomestar: i recall from my previous discussions on AA when someone brought up diversity as a reason to support it. as i did at the time, i still do not understand the need for diversity. that past sentence alone will probably make most hearts skip a beat simply because we have been pounded with this concept throughout our lifetimes without even stopping for a second to think about it. automatically we equate diversity with “good” for some reason (this is very orwellian if you ask me). please don’t misunderstand me - diversity in the nation is a wonderful aspect that makes the united states so great, but when it comes to a competitive arena where people are applying for selective spots, i don’t find diversity such a great necessity that certain people should be given an advantage. i think the general philosophy is that people will see how “normal”/friendly people from an array of different races are, share backgrounds and life stories, and then come to dispell those old prejudices. personally, i don’t find this happening at cornell or across the nation. at cornell, from what i observe, asians stick with asians, whites stick with whites, and etc. - it is very clicky here. i have also noticed that bigots stay bigots. maybe it’s working or maybe it isn’t. i simply don’t see any evidence. or maybe, people get happy when they see many different colors?</p>
<p>however, all of that “need for diversity” talk is avoiding the issue of AA’s deeper ethics. to make things clear, i have no problem with AA when it comes to taking socioeconomic concerns or circumstantial issues into account. but i find it unethical to base an admission, even if marginally, on skin color. there are many asians who grew up with economic difficulties and there are other races with histories of slavery, and conversely, there are many URMs who are from privilaged families.</p>
<p>actually, i recall reading an article published by princeton that made statistical calculations on who would most benefit from the elimination of AA. i think AA proponents seem to continuously forget that in a closed system with competition, one person’s gain is another’s loss - there’s no buts or ifs. it’s always. here is a quote from the article:</p>
<p>“Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students, the report concludes, as their acceptance rate would rise by merely 0.5 percentage points. Espenshade noted that WHEN ONE GROUP LOSES GROUND, ANOTHER HAS TO GAIN – in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent. Typically, many more Asian students apply to elite schools than other underrepresented minorities. The study also found that although athletes and legacy applicants are predominantly white, their numbers are so small that their admissions do little to displace minority applicants.”
[Princeton</a> University - Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment](<a href=“Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment”>Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment)</p>
<p>and please don’t argue that asians have a personality disorder. either way, AA is ineffective - a minority takes another minority’s spot.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, I applied RD, not ED. I was also wondering if ethnicity plays any role in amount of financial aid received, or even scholarships. I love how this thread turned into an affirmative action debate…</p>
<p>Love how the thread turned into an AA discussion? Hmm, I wonder why.</p>