<p>CA has had a lot more open debate on these topics than most places, given the propositions spearheaded by Ward Connerly, which resulted in race-conscious admissions becoming illegal in all state-supported colleges. The UC system then adopted a policy that was supposed to take life circumstances into account, precisely because there was broad agreement that disadvantaged students should be evaluated taking into account the obstacles in their lives. Several UCs, however, have tried to use this new policy as a cover, and to still take race and NOT life obstacles into account, so there is a new lawsuit against them, which will undoubtedly move us closer to the consensus position in the state - which is that life circumstances are a valid factor, but race isn't.</p>
<p>Certainly there are admissions officers who don't agree with that, and at private schools, they are not constrained by public policy. But I think it is incorrect to assume that most people with a background in education think race is in and of itself the reason an applicant should be evaluated differently from others.</p>
<p>"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>ok, dancinamanda, but is it fair that some URM gets in with HALF the work that an overrepresented ethnicity (Asian, Indian, white) student does? Is it fair that someone who has done a fraction of the work that one of these people has gets in because he or she is "lucky" enough to be a URM? no, it's not. Berkeley has it right, they give EVERYONE an equal chance. but AA doesn't. Don't you see, it is better if every given an equal chance rather than a few people given an advantage. Just because you want to meet different people doesn't mean other people should be punished because people of their race happen to be hard workers.</p>
<p>you cannot determin how much a work a person has done unless you truly know them
otherwise you are just speculating
I know kids with 1600/1600s and 2300+ and really high GPAs
their work ethic is far from mathcing some of my friends with decent SATs and slightly lower GPAs
race aside, I do not think it is right to say how much work a person has done... especially without knowing the environment in which that person is working and all the factors that could affect him/her</p>
<p>where do you draw the line between URM and challenging environment. Or for that matter, where does Stanford draw the line? First-generation asians aren't given the same "consideration" as a first-generation hispanic student (no offense intended, just for the sake of argument), Stanford is making some pretty big assumptions here. Additionally, no doubt it looks good on Stanford's part for accepting a high percentage of URMs so they can publish the stats in those viewbooks. YES, environment and difficult circumstances play a role, I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying, where do schools draw that line between being a URM and being in an unfortunate circumstance. It's almost like if you are a URM, you are supposed to be in challenging circumstances, or something.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's almost like if you are a URM, you are supposed to be in challenging circumstances, or something.
[/quote]
I think that that exactly IS the claim. Proponents of AA are saying that because our society is inherently racist, URMs are inherently disadvantaged by being URMs. It is hard for me to judge this claim, but some very smart and very thoughtful posters on CC (Northstarmom comes to mind) gave very compelling arguments to support it in the past.</p>
<p>some people on CC believe that all Asians have doctors for parents or come from rich families that can afford to hire expensive tutors. This is not true. Similarly, not all URMs come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Why is it that when someone tells an Asian that it is not fair he/she should be given an "advantage" because they have better scores/grades/overall because their parents could afford tutors or expensive summer camps nobody has any fiery objections. However, when people say it is not fair that URMs be given a clear advantage in admissions, everyone needs to become politically correct?</p>
<p>my point is that few asians can afford expensive tutors/camps and not all URMs come from devastating backgrounds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
some people on CC believe that all Asians have doctors for parents or come from rich families that can afford to hire expensive tutors.
[/quote]
That's not the kind of "people on CC" I was talking about in my previous post.</p>
<p>Some people on CC also seem to believe that black students get accepted everywhere as long as they have a pulse, and the Asians have no chance at top schools. Obviously their opinions aren't very valuable.</p>
<p>When I talk about environment and all the factors affecting a person
I am not just talking about having to work or something along those lines dealing with financial disadvantages
Some people face time constraints
Some families wealthy or not, have difficulty supporting their children's ECs/passions</p>
<p>AA does not to be abolished I don't think
I would agree it needs to be reformed
But I think it is also just as wrong for ppl to believe that being a middle-class URM or from a family with at least one parent with a college education makes things all better
from personal experience, not necessarily</p>
<p>Yes, I understand we all face time constraints
I meant more severe than the average student
or the norm for a HS student
i.e. really early bus times and late drop-offs
this is not the same as having to work to keep the lights on in your household
or not eating over entire weekends and only eating at school
but I was trying to remind people of other factors that could possibly affect a student's success</p>
<p>i think it should be more about socioeconomic status than race. because there are plenty of low income white kids who have it really rough, but they're gonna be seen as white and their chances will be lower than that of a middle class hispanic whose parents both have college degrees.
i personally am quite fond of affirmative action since i'm mexican american. BUT i don't really think it is fair. i really haven't been too disadvantaged except that all my grandparents spoke spanish, and i account that to my problems with words... other than that, noone can tell i'm hispanic, i've been treated white all my life. i come from a family that's making 100k+ a year. but colleges are in it for the statistics and if AA gets me into stanford and MIT i'll be thrilled.</p>
<p>cookiemon- the applicant's true situation will be revealed in their essays and reccomendations. this puts them (and their race) in context. so no, i don't think someone will get in simply b/c they are a URM or not get in b/c they are asian or white</p>
<p>you multitude of asians with amazing test scores need to realize that cultural background and the diversity coming from it can be more important than 50 SAT points. A campus full of 60% asians or whatever would be dry and without the cultural richness of african americans, white americans, nicaraguans, canadians, australians, russians etc. Its not just about scores, about academics even. Its about life, and preparing students for success in the real world so that they can help our world become a better place. If that means that some asians get denied for the benefit of a more culturally rich campus, then so be it. Its not like theres no hope for a student with perfect test scores if they dont go to Stanford. I just think that a child growing up in a purely asian community, even if they are better at schoolwork/SAT's, doesnt benefit him/her nearly enough as a child growing up in a global environment of many races and peoples so that in the future they have a better understanding of our world, not just books.</p>
<p>my White female physics teacher got to learn some dance moves from the Alphas (a predominantly Black male fraternity) at her alma mater
with a certain percentage of ethnic groups and races and etc...
the school increases the chance of each individual feeling comfortable and willing to share certain cultural traits or staples that otherwise people in other cultures would miss out on
you can take Chinese and go study abroad
but having a Chinese roommate can be a way of learning through simple interaction what it is like for a Chinese-American who came from this city but grew up here but did or didn't know her father or did or didn't learn to swim</p>
<p>having an African-American roommate whose family is basically rich would be a learning experience (hopefully)</p>
<p>just seeing other races and ethnic groups and ppl from various backgrounds succeeding is a learning expereince in itself
just as seeing people, of which some are also in some sub-group of the world/US population that you also count yourself a part, succeed is a beautiful thing as well</p>
<p>I don't understand why after all of these posts throughout CC that applicants don't see that test scores and GPA aren't the only or sole factors for acceptance. Colleges build a class which includes a wide variety of types of students. They're not going to accept everyone with 2400 SATs or 4.0 GPAs. Do you know how many of these types of students get rejected from the top colleges and universities. There are yearly statistics of the number of valedictorians and high achieving students who get rejected. I think it's pretty ridiculous for students to constantly complain about not being admitted because of one factor (I didn't get in because I'm Asian and they got in because they're URM). Do you know how FEW URM are on these elite campuses??? Do you know the history of exclusion of URMs at most of these institution. It's a new day when it comes to admissions, people need to understand this.</p>
<p>I copy and pasted this from a similar thread.</p>
<p>Have any of you read this? I think it sheds light a both the genetic and environmental aspects of literacy among African Americans. Learning to read and write was a capitol offense maybe 3or 4 generations ago.I wonder how many slaves got to pass on the" SAT testing gene".</p>
<p>Nightjohn</p>
<p>Written by Gary Paulsen
Juvenile Fiction - Ethnic - African American | Delacorte Books for Young Readers | Hardcover | January 1993 | $15.95 | 978-0-385-30838-0 (0-385-30838-8)</p>
<p>Teachers GUIDE</p>
<p>NOTE TO TEACHERS</p>
<p>A message from the Author </p>
<p>The way I came into writing Nightjohn, I came in the back door. I worked for several years on research on a book on Sally Hemings, who was a slave girl owned by Thomas Jefferson. I think they had between six and nine children together over her life. When Jefferson died he was bankrupt and she was sold in the block. Said, "one 53-year-old woman worth $50.00," and they just got rid of her. And I wanted to write about her but there's not enough. I think a lot of the historical information about her has been destroyed over the years.
But while I was doing the research on Sally, I ran into many other stories and I got hold of the slave chronicles and its interviews of ex-slaves in the '20s and '30s in America. Just in dialect--some of it's hard to read. It's written the way they talked. It was beautiful.
I sat in my basement reading these things crying every night. And one of the things I ran into several times was the slaves' attempt to learn to read. For the slaves it was a capital offense to learn to read and they could be killed. They usually didn't get killed right away because they were too valuable to the slave owner. So the owners would cut a thumb off, or sometimes a toe; sometimes the front half of the foot would be chopped off. Men were castrated. And they were always whipped. That didn't stop them and they would hide in the schools--they would call them pit schools--and they would get a ditch or a gully or a hole, and they'd cover it with brush so the light wouldn't shine out, and they'd go in there at night with torches. They tried to teach each other to read and were successful in many places. Most of the owners were terrified of the slaves learning to read, because they knew they would want to be free.</p>
<p>ABOUT THIS BOOK</p>
<p>A riveting story that pits the power of literacy against the inhumanity of the slave system in the pre-Civil War South.
Travel to the Waller plantation and meet 12-year-old Sarny, a slave whose mother was sold away when she was four. Sarny first sees Nightjohn when he is brought to the plantation with a rope around his neck, his body covered with scars from many beatings. Sarny is drawn to Nightjohn when she learns that he had escaped North to freedom, only to voluntarily return to the South. Nightjohn has a self-imposed mission--to teach slaves how to read and write. He believes knowledge is the key to helping slaves break out of bondage. Sarny is willing to take the risk, even knowing that the penalty for reading is dismemberment.</p>
<p>My father was born in Alabama in 1913. He learned to read from a sharecroppers son. He was denied his Phd from Columbia. ( He was told it wasn't "time").My daughter would be considered a "privileged" African American. She could care less about "Ivy league" and never comes here. She does want to meet "people like her", and the Ivy League seem to be among the few places to find a significant population.</p>
<p>There is a Disney movie of this book as well. It is very powerful and portrays how threatening it was to southern whites for slaves to learn how to read and write. You could lose your life just for learning the alphabet. It was against the law for slaves in the South to learn to read and right. People who are literate will not want to continue to be slaves. Thanks Shinkrap for pointing out this important source.</p>
<p>There is only one way to prove the point about the "personality issue". I wish that one of the top ranking colleges could do a blind read on the applictaions (without name, race/ethnicity) and publish the results just for benchmarking purpose. I am sure that the general perception has a lot to do with the "personality" issue for the Asian population.</p>
<p>"Its about life, and preparing students for success in the real world so that they can help our world become a better place. If that means that some asians get denied for the benefit of a more culturally rich campus, then so be it."</p>
<p>Then so be it, huh? That is the point of contention: It is okay for some otherwise deserving asians to get denied in the name of achieving a more culturally diverse campus. Sure sounds nice-- the end result definitely is.</p>
<p>Until you realize it basically means racism for the sake of diversity.</p>
<p>^^ exactly. People who argue such don't seem to realize that they're implying that racism = okay. (Perhaps not hatred of, but discrimination based purely on race.)</p>