<p>Well said cgarrett. </p>
<p>Thanks for your great post.</p>
<p>I think that most of the posts in this thread are pretty much self-serving. Back one million years ago, we were all the same race. For example, you can call the Chinese African because it's believed that their ancestors migrated from Africa. The Native Americans may also migrated from Mongolia or China. Even quite a few white folks have Kengis Khan' blood because of this occupation of East Europe.</p>
<p>"Meritocracy, you say? That is not necessarily fair either....a meritocracy rewards people for their PERCEIVED ability and accomplishments: What happened to the fairness of your "meritocracy" when the poor kid in a low-income school who may, in fact, be incredibly bright, worked his *** off trying to keep his grades up, help support his family, and simultaneously avoid his alcoholic father?? Are you saying he didn't deserve as much because he didn't get all As and a 2400 on his SAT? Maybe the only reason you did so well is because you came from a great gene pool and it was easier for you....is it fair to reward you and not him? What did the other kid do to deserve his home life/crazy parents/crappy school/WHATEVER."</p>
<p>Overcoming terrible circumstances goes to character, which can reasonably be defined as merit. The same cannot be said of race. The challenges due to skin color are hardly to be compared with those resulting from growing up in poor households- precisely as you point out.</p>
<p>"Also, I do believe you will succeed if it is really that important to you....not getting into your first choice college will not ruin your life, unless you believe it will. There are many stories of disappointed kids who, in retrospect, realize they are happier/more successful/etc. with their second, third or fourth choice. And in your case, we're not talking "No Name Crappy Local Community College" vs Harvard.....all your options are great....and that makes you luckier than most, even some who may have worked harder than you!!! "</p>
<p>I did not speak in absolutes. I did not state that it would ruin your life not to get into a more prestigious college, but it undoubtedly helps career-wise to get into a better college.</p>
<p>"It's very sad for you that you feel that way.....but it also is exactly why a college with too much of one race would be unacceptable......"</p>
<p>Unacceptable to who? You mean that it would irrationally eat at the consciouses of liberals and social-justice types for unjustifiable reasons? </p>
<p>I both live in and believe in reality. And I believe in practicality over naive abstractions. If you've been to high school or college recently, you will realize that this whole "sharing of culture" business, while sounding nice, does not actually happen. Reality may conflict with your ideals and what you wish were true, but in the end it is still reality.</p>
<p>"Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I would prefer to be in a culturally balanced environment. It's more like the real world, in which we all must live eventually."</p>
<p>As I stated, the real world does not have different standards for people of different races either, does it? Do you think it is healthy to to give the notion to URMs that they can work less hard because they will be given undue benefits due to skin color?</p>
<p>How do you define culturally balanced? Would having 75% white, 15% hispanic, 10% black, and 5% asian be more inside your comfort zone simply because its the makeup of the United States and maybe what you're used to seeing?</p>
<p>"Finally, "URM and the son of a millionaire father"? Even assuming that is a common occurrence, don't you think Adcoms consider such factors? They should (and do) expect more from those who have been given more....otherwise, it would just be a game of numbers.""</p>
<p>Whether or not this is a common occurence is irrelevant- this is still injustice no matter how many cases of this actually happen.
Admissions officers may take it into account, but how much? Even if candidates in these two situations are regarded equally due to their race and economic factors, it is absurd to think that this can possibly be fair.</p>
<p>"All I am saying is that, for a multitude of reasons, life isn't always fair, and the sooner you adjust to it, the better it will be for you in the long run. "</p>
<p>The Supreme Court- if they had balls- could easily rule AA illegal and make it all fair- but somehow no one seems to care about those screwed over by AA unless you're the one thats unjustifiably being hurt by it.</p>
<p>If, as you say, "Overcoming terrible circumstances goes to character, which can reasonably be defined as merit," then how do you know that is NOT why Asians with great scores are being rejected? Maybe the Adcoms saw past the numbers in order to determine "merit," and awarded "their place" to that poor kid. In that case, you really cannot claim discrimination, by your own admission, because that poor kid deserved it. </p>
<p>You also ask: "Do you think it is healthy to to give the notion to URMs that they can work less hard because they will be given undue benefits due to skin color?" That comment is disturbing on so many levels....</p>
<p>Do you really ASSUME that URMs "work less hard" just because they may get lower scores???? I sincerely hope you do not attend any school with which I am involved, because your attitude borders on racism. That, and your apparent refusal to assimilate with other cultures evidences a very narrow perspective which would not be desirable for a leader in our society. Perhaps if you spent MORE time with other racial groups you would be more empathetic to their issues.</p>
<p>Maybe the Supreme Court has better things to worry about than whether or not you get into your chosen college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are familiar with the races and admit/reject/defer patterns of students at competitive high schools it will become blatantly clear that being Asian is clearly a disadvantage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's really dependent on your point of view. If you put one group at an advantage, then you are, logically, leaving the other groups at a disadvantage. In that respect, whites are at a disadvantage, too, since URMs are at an advantage. Or you could think of it as URMs having an advantage. Either way, the effect is still the same. This goes to the heart of the AA matter. Your view on it is not so definitive, or else AA wouldn't be as controversial as it is.</p>
<p>^^ not really, just because a group or thing is at an advantage doesn't mean that everyone else is at a disadvantage. For example, leaving college admissions out of the picture, if you take socioeconomic factors, whites are clearly at an advantage. However, this does not mean that all the other groups are disadvantaged, because clearly asians aren't. That's just an example. Your statement is either convoluted or im misinterperting your meaning...</p>
<p>"If, as you say, "Overcoming terrible circumstances goes to character, which can reasonably be defined as merit," then how do you know that is NOT why Asians with great scores are being rejected? Maybe the Adcoms saw past the numbers in order to determine "merit," and awarded "their place" to that poor kid. In that case, you really cannot claim discrimination, by your own admission, because that poor kid deserved it. "</p>
<p>Too bad the key phrase in that whole section there is "maybe"- because in practice this isn't what happens.
It has been widely concluded by so many studies that AA-admitted URMs occupy slots that would otherwise be occupied primarily by Asians in a race-blind system. It is not the poor who take Asian slots.</p>
<p>"You also ask: "Do you think it is healthy to to give the notion to URMs that they can work less hard because they will be given undue benefits due to skin color?" That comment is disturbing on so many levels....</p>
<p>Do you really ASSUME that URMs "work less hard" just because they may get lower scores???? I sincerely hope you do not attend any school with which I am involved, because your attitude borders on racism."</p>
<p>I never said they actually work less hard. What I did say was that AA seems to suggest they don't have to work as hard, because life will give them advantages and preferences due to race- which is simply not true in the real world outside of maybe politics and some parts of the entertainment industry where characters would probably have to be played by actors of the same race- white Martin Luther King wouldn't work. Regardless of whether or not people buy into it, it is a terrible idea to be perpetuating.</p>
<p>I have simply no idea where you got the notion that I said that URMs work less hard. Read more carefully and stop assuming that I am a racist simply because I oppose affirmative action.</p>
<p>"That, and your apparent refusal to assimilate with other cultures evidences a very narrow perspective which would not be desirable for a leader in our society. Perhaps if you spent MORE time with other racial groups you would be more empathetic to their issues."</p>
<p>Where did I say that I refuse to assimilate with other cultures?
I could have guessed this would happen, seriously.
This is exactly the problem- debate on racial issues in America barely occurs because people start assuming things like this everytime someone tries to intelligently voice their opposition to issues like affirmave action.
I have friends of all different cultures and ethnicities. But we don't make our cultures an issue of discussion- and neither do most of the kids at our school. This is the way kids are- if you want to deny it go ahead. But this "oh my god you'll learn so much from diversity" garbage is simply untrue.</p>
<p>Atack the arguer- not the argument. Simply calling people racists may work in many cases in getting them to recant their views on racial issues such as affirmative action- but it won't work on me because:
a. I know I'm not a racist
b. anyone who reads my statements carefully and does not try to put words in my mouth will realize the same thing</p>
<p>kyledavid: my definition of disadvantage is relative to a race-blind system- just to clear up any confusion.</p>
<p>FYI- I never said I supported AA; I only said Asians were not being unfairly discriminated against. </p>
<p>I believe Adcoms should take ALL factors into account, including available opportunities and socioeconomic status. Therefore, it may appear on the surface that Asians are being discriminated against because not all of them with perfect numbers are admitted, but what is really happening is that Adcoms are considering everyone's achievements within the context of what is available to them.</p>
<p>Like greattone1 pointed out, "just because a group or thing is at an advantage doesn't mean that everyone else is at a disadvantage." I think what both he/she and kyledavid80 are saying is that Asians are not being discriminated against, specifically......but in order to help those of lesser means (whatever you want to call them), Asians, as well as everyone else in the applicant pool including whites, may have to give up spaces to them. To you it may look like discrimination because their numbers may be weaker than your own, but many other factors can explain what you think of as "unfairness."</p>
<p>I know this is sort of off topic, but do you think I will be admitted SCEA, once considering my URM status and once not? Maybe this will help you debate the topic of this thread.</p>
<p>Stats:[ul]
[<em>] Fee Waiver Used?: No
[</em>] SAT I (by section): 2370, 800 Math, 800 CR, 770 Writing
[<em>] SAT IIs: Two highest: 800 Math IIc, 800 US History
[</em>] GPA, Weighted and Unweighted: 3.93, 3.41
[<em>] Rank: N/A but top 11-12%
[</em>] ACT: Sucks
[<em>] APs (including this year's): Biology-5, English, US History-5, Statistics-5 Italian-3, Chemistry, Physics, Calc AB
[</em>] IBs (including this year's: Meh
[<em>] Senior Yr Courseload: AP Chem, AP English 4, AP Calc AB, AP Physics, Honors Electronics
[</em>] Number of Apps from Your School: 1 early APP
[<em>] Other stats (Awards, etc.): NMSF, AP Scholar with Honor, National Achievement, Quiz Bowl awards, Honor Societies, etc.
[/ul]Subjective:[ul]
[</em>] ECs listed on app: Academic Team, Research, Tutoring, Chess Team, Habitat for Humanity, Italian Honor Society, Orchestra with leadership in Italian Honor Society, and strong involvement in academic team and tutoring
[<em>] Job/Work Experience: SAT Tutor
[</em>] Essays (subject and responses): I think they were really good and unique, but then again so does everyone else
[<em>] Teacher Recs: Italian great, knew throughout hs, Physics decent…wasn’t the strongest student
[</em>] Counselor Rec: Pretty good I guess
[<em>] Interview (feel, interviewer and general location): N/A
[</em>] Hook (TASP, RSI, Research, etc.): Research
[/ul]Location/Person:[list]
[<em>] State or Country: NJ
[</em>] School Type, Average Stats of School (if available): Very competitive Public
[<em>] Ethnicity: Black
[</em>] Gender: Male
[<em>] Income Bracket: Don’t wish to specify
[</em>] Hooks (URM, first generation college, etc.): URM Status
[<em>] Strengths: Test scores, Passion for ECs, essays
[</em>] Weaknesses: Grades lol</p>
<p>PS: This is because I'm very nervous at the moment lol.</p>
<p>Burger,
you are a very competitive applicant regardless of your race, but your URM status will make your acceptance much more of a "sure thing".</p>
<p>"what is available to them" depends on income- and not on race.</p>
<p>affirmative action does help give people "merit" based on overcoming socioeconomic status- it only gives people advantages based on race. This is precisely why it should be abolished.</p>
<p>if socioeconomic status and personal circumstances are to be considered, they should be considered without regard to race. a poor white or asian is just as disadvantaged as a poor URM- and admissions people should favor both equally. it should not be as is the case now, where the URM poor are looked upon sympathetically by admissions officers, whereas equally poor and disadvantaged whites and asians do not get nearly as much sympathy.</p>
<p>affirmative action doesn't help out those of lesser means. it helps out those of certain ethnicities- the underrepresented ones.</p>
<p>who does affirmative action really help?
if you are truly interested, want the truth, and aren't scared of it, read this.</p>
<p>[ABC</a> News: Outsourcing Affirmative Action: Colleges Look Overseas for Racial Diversity<a href="there%20are%20four%20pages">/url</a></p>
<p>then read this</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_race_sensitive_not_helping.html%5DUniversity">http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/56_race_sensitive_not_helping.html]University</a> Race-Sensitive Admissions Programs Are Not Helping Black Students Who Most Need Assistance](<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=2931345&page=1%5DABC">http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=2931345&page=1)</p>
<p>Not to criticize affirmative action or anything, but just from reading some posts on CC of URM's who have gotten deferred or rejected from top schools they were sure their "status" would get them into, I would say that AA encourages some students to underachieve. Because they have less stringent requirements, they don't feel the need to meet the standards that everyone else is expected to achieve. Of course, this is certainly not the case for every URM, but I have seen it happen more than once. If this mentality is established at the start of the college experience, how might it affect their studies later? I honestly don't know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just because a group or thing is at an advantage doesn't mean that everyone else is at a disadvantage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Comparatively, yes.</p>
<p>you guys talk such b.s. about affirmative action just because you're not a minority. </p>
<p>when it comes down to it, race is taken into context. </p>
<p>i'm a minority but both my parents went to college. do i expect my minorty aspect to help me? no. </p>
<p>and minorities do not underachieve just because of their minority status. the SAT is a culturally slanted test. there is research that backs it up.</p>
<p>also look up percentages of minorities at different private schools. they are still way underrepresented even with affirmative action. and look at schools (berkeley for example) without affirmative action where the school is dominated by 1 or 2 races. i'm sorry but if you want to go to a school that is made up mostly of one or two races, that's fine. personally, i want to meet different kinds of people in college. </p>
<p>so don't cry, asians and whites, you still make up a larger majority college campuses. </p>
<p>sorry if this sounds mean. i just had to get it out there a bit before this post became dominated with anti-affirmative action sentiments. </p>
<p>eventually, (ideally) there will come a time where affirmative action will not be necessary. maybe when there is no racism, no racial separation, when the make up of colleges represents the racial make up of the nation. </p>
<p>until then, affirmative action will probably still stand.</p>
<p>"also look up percentages of minorities at different private schools. they are still way underrepresented even with affirmative action. and look at schools (berkeley for example) without affirmative action where the school is dominated by 1 or 2 races. i'm sorry but if you want to go to a school that is made up mostly of one or two races, that's fine. personally, i want to meet different kinds of people in college."</p>
<p>"Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I would prefer to be in a culturally balanced environment. It's more like the real world, in which we all must live eventually."</p>
<p>that may be the case, but what of it? If the school is made up largely of those two races because INDIVIDUALS of those races earned the right to be there, then what is there to debate? what CAN you possibly debate?</p>
<p>Sometimes I wonder why race should even be an issue at all in admissions criteria. Why can't we have race-blind applications-- is it really too much to ask for a non-racist admission process?</p>
<p>And I'm sick and tired of hearing about the socioeconomic argument. Race =/= socioeconomics.</p>
<p>dancinamanda:</p>
<p>
[quote]
and look at schools (berkeley for example) without affirmative action where the school is dominated by 1 or 2 races.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, what? Every school is dominated by one or two races. For the most part, it's white people. Stanford is 41% white, 25% Asian; Harvard is 45% white, 15% Asian. Berkeley is about a third white and 40% Asian (not to mention about 20% URM). What's so different? Is the latter inherently unfavorable to you? That smacks of latent racism, to be honest.</p>
<p>In addition, think about it: what is diversity at college about? Skin color or culture? It's about culture. The "Asian" group encompasses a ton of countries -- Korea, China, Japan, Mongolia, Vietnam, etc. not to mention all the countries in southern Asia (India, Pakistan, Iran, etc.), southeastern Asia (Malaysia, Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, etc.), central Asia (all the -stan countries), western Asia (Qatar, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, etc.) and northern Asia (Russia). In fact, "Asian" is such a broad group that many colleges are considering breaking it up into many. The students of these cultures usually hold on to them -- in other words, they have much of their culture to bring to the campus. "White" encompasses mainly European countries, but for the most part, the students from this group don't retain their cultures. Many students can claim that they're Italian, German, English, Irish, whatever -- but how many of them can speak the language of the culture? Do they have any idea of the different customs? The foods? The people? Most likely not. So which group brings more (cultural) diversity to the campus?</p>
<p>I think Stanford's proportions are very good. Its 25% Asian is pretty high in comparison to its peers. I also think Berkeley's proportions are great, since its Asian population is very diverse. After all, the population in Asia probably makes up the majority of the world's population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and minorities do not underachieve just because of their minority status. the SAT is a culturally slanted test. there is research that backs it up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, there is research. I know a student who was black and she got a 1930 on the SAT. A good score, yes, but more than 200 points below Stanford's average. She got in, though she wasn't 'spectacular' by any means. She grew up in a primarily white community; her "black" culture didn't hinder her knowledge or ability, as she was really just like everyone else. So it had little to do with her score. Yet it's obvious she got a tip for being a URM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe when there is no racism, no racial separation, when the make up of colleges represents the racial make up of the nation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You advocate that you want racial diversity, then you say this? If it's going to be representative of the US nation, you'll have 75% white, about 4% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 12% black, and <1% Native American. Is that what you want?</p>
<p>Jhg888:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race =/= socioeconomics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it doesn't. There are too many anomalies for that. But it's a nice (and effective) proxy.</p>
<p>Data to backup kyledavid on what covers asia:
Asia</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>^^ thanks. I was gonna link to it, but thought if anyone wants to counter what Asia includes... well, they'd seem rather ignorant.</p>
<p>All of your arguments stem out of the belief that racial diversity doesn't matter. And the overwhelming majority of those experienced in education (whose views in my opinions are a lot more reliable than those of a bunch of 17 year old college-obsessed teenagers who have never experienced racial diversity beyond the surface), believe 100% that it does, and for the better. </p>
<p>So judging that racial diversity is important in education, as it is judged by those knowledgeable on the topic, and its use as a tool for social change, a university can justify seeking racial diversity in its class so long as all admits are qualified. </p>
<p>(I particularly like the statement above on who decides what makes someone "more qualified", as it is undoubtedly biased towards those in power)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the overwhelming majority of those experienced in education (whose views in my opinions are a lot more reliable than those of a bunch of 17 year old college-obsessed teenagers who have never experienced racial diversity beyond the surface), believe 100% that it does, and for the better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How naive. "Racial diversity" is for PR. Cultural diversity is for student experience.</p>