Facts about different ethnicities !!!

[kyledavid80]

<p>Newjack88:</p>

<p>
[quote]
That is true but you are ignoring the fact that taking a higher level math course will put you at an advantage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It will in that you've had more experience, but not in that it gives you more knowledge for the SAT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I would like to point out that at higher institutions AA does not help URMs get in nearly as much at state schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We acknowledged this a while ago in the thread.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is true at many junior colleges and some state schools, but false at top institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You seem to be implying that schools like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA, UNC, etc. are not "top institutions."</p>

<p>
[quote]
t's been shown that the better the school, the better the graduation rate for all races.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you're saying that, say, Duke is better than Chicago because its graduation rate is higher? (I only point out these two because the difference in graduation rate is incremental -- as it is between top privates and top publics.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another thing that has been frequently mentioned is that AA should be practiced only in regards to socio-economics. This though is an uninformed view due to that fact that, regardless of a person's class, he or she will still be discriminated against.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the idea is that the poor person did as well as the rich person, despite severe adversity, so the former should get a boost. Makes sense to me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow... I think that most people would agree that we have started to make progress in race relations due to the abolishment of segregation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said we hadn't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anyways, you are missing the point of having a diverse class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I don't think I am. I see the "ethnically diverse class" as a PR tactic; I see the "culturally diverse class" or "socioeconomically diverse class" as truly worthwhile. The latter engenders the former.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The most significant effect of a diverse class is seen in the discussion based classes since more views would be expressed. People would become exposed to more new ideas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are these new ideas you speak of? Is a middle-class Mexican going to have a drastically different viewpoint on Kant than a middle-class white person? Pray tell what significant addition is made to a classroom by having different ethnicities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have witnessed this on the high school level at a diversity seminar called Our Town and can reasonably expect this to happen on the college level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Anecdotal evidence, again, doesn't prove much.</p>

<p>Again, it's the culture. And frankly, many of the URMs admitted to Stanford (not to mention most colleges) are not as socioeconomically disadvantaged as some might think--or hope. The ethnicity really serves two purposes: for PR and for students to be exposed to other ethnicities, thus growing more accustomed to diversity. But other than, ethnicity doesn't play a major role on the campus.</p>

<p>
[quote]
how can you assert that "cliques form" without actually having attended college yet?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, I can see it. Not to mention students acknowledge that cliques form. Cliques form at schools. Cliques form at colleges. Cliques form at jobs. It's inevitable.</p>

<p>Of course, this isn't to say that there isn't some mixing. But there isn't as much as people would like to think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is the same for legacies, musicians, athletes, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody said these were very justified, either, though that's a matter for another thread. (Also, notice that discrimination on the above factors isn't a matter on the national agenda, nor has it ever been there. I wonder why.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
"trolling" just means to surf the web

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, no. To troll is to look for instances where you can say something outrageous in order to get a rise out of people, simply for fun. I don't see such in bob99975's posts.</p>

<p>Troll</a> (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>I think this part can be applied here:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Troll" is also used in a broader pejorative sense to question the good faith of any Internet user who has annoyed the person using the term.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
that even high income Africans/African-Americans and Latinos are still severely held back by these stereotypes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really doubt that it can be deemed "severely," though this is delving a bit too far into the efficacy of equality laws, far beyond the scope of this discussion.</p>

<p>Tyler09:</p>

<p>
[quote]
out of his most recent 40 posts 30 of them center around AA, which conveniently is the same as the 60 that jmoney predicted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I said before: bob99975 has been a member since April of 2006, and the AA topics only popped up very recently, so you can expect there to be more recent posts on AA from him. Why this is truly an issue, I don't know.</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>
[quote]

[quote]
That is true but you are ignoring the fact that taking a higher level math course will put you at an advantage.

[/quote]
It will in that you've had more experience, but not in that it gives you more knowledge for the SAT.

[/quote]

Ok… so you are basically agreeing with me that taking higher level math classes does give you an advantage on the SAT since if one is taking these higher level classes “[one has] had more experience."</p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to be implying that schools like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UVA, UNC, etc. are not "top institutions."

[/quote]

No… just no…</p>

<p>
[quote]
So you're saying that, say, Duke is better than Chicago because its graduation rate is higher? (I only point out these two because the difference in graduation rate is incremental -- as it is between top privates and top publics.)

[/quote]

Again, no… just no… you are completely misunderstanding my argument. First of all I said “some.” Second, it is a fact that the better the institution the better the graduation rate. Perhaps I do not understand your point…? Duke and Chicago are both good schools and both have good graduation rates? The only way your argument could make sense is if you are implying that one of the two is not a good school… which is absurd.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the idea is that the poor person did as well as the rich person, despite severe adversity, so the former should get a boost. Makes sense to me.

[/quote]

Yes, that does make sense but I was talking about how people often complain that wealthy URMs benefit unjustly from AA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, I don't think I am. I see the "ethnically diverse class" as a PR tactic; I see the "culturally diverse class" or "socioeconomically diverse class" as truly worthwhile. The latter engenders the former.

[/quote]

Well I am sorry you see it that way. And, yes, you do have trouble understanding what a diverse class is. A diverse class is one that contains many views and opinions. Since people obtain their views and opinions from their life experiences, which is affect by their socio-economic background, ethnicity, and culture, it makes sense that colleges consider race to create a class with many different views and opinions.</p>

<p>So that you can better understand what I am saying here is a flow chart:

[quote]
Ethnicity/Class/Culture -> Life Experiences -> Worldview

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
What are these new ideas you speak of? Is a middle-class Mexican going to have a drastically different viewpoint on Kant than a middle-class white person? Pray tell what significant addition is made to a classroom by having different ethnicities.

[/quote]

Refer to the flow chart and it will make sense. People with different life experiences from yours can help to see new ways of looking at the world. But, you know what, I guess you’re right… why should anyone ever try to see the world from someone else’s perspective…</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anecdotal evidence, again, doesn't prove much.

[/quote]

It makes me more qualified to speak on this matter though and proves a lot more than you have.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And frankly, many of the URMs admitted to Stanford (not to mention most colleges) are not as socioeconomically disadvantaged as some might think

[/quote]

That is true. Some are not though. Anyways, one thing is common to all of them; regardless of their class, they were all discriminated against in similar ways.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Er, I can see it. Not to mention students acknowledge that cliques form. Cliques form at schools. Cliques form at colleges. Cliques form at jobs. It's inevitable.

[/quote]

Again, the word “clique” probably is not the best word to use here since it implies that strict social boundaries form that prevent students from associating with whomever they wish. I think that what you are talking about is how people form groups of friends that they hang out with on a regular basis. These friends usually have similar or compatible worldviews. Since your worldview is a product of your life experiences (see flow chart), it makes sense that you would hang out with people of the same ethnicity. I do not think this is good or bad. It’s life. And, again, you are missing the point of a diverse class. No one says that everyone has to be close friends with each other and hang out on a regular basis. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I really doubt that it can be deemed "severely," though this is delving a bit too far into the efficacy of equality laws, far beyond the scope of this discussion.

[/quote]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Stereotypes are a social issue not a legal issue. And yes it can be deemed “severely.” Most people think that simply having money can put URMs on a fair playing field when that is not the case. It puts them ahead of their poor fellow URMs, but they are still much farther behind than Whites, Asians, and pretty much everyone else except for Latinos who have it equally just as bad. (Most people are reluctant to admit this but it is true.)</p>

<p>I would say that the most dangerous stereotype that Africans/African-Americans and Latinos face is that they are not supposed to do well in academics because this stereotype hurts the self-esteem of many minority students. Not too long ago women faced the stereotype the same stereotype and as a result many women failed to be successful academically. Now that that stereotype has almost completely faded we now see that women are excelling in academics and are even doing better than men academically.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>
[quote]
so you are basically agreeing with me that taking higher level math classes does give you an advantage on the SAT since if one is taking these higher level classes </p>

[Tyler09]

<p>^^Kyle David</p>

<p>-I can almost guarantee you that you cannot find a single visible black or hispanic student that will say "No, i have never felt discriminated against or stereotyped in my life based on race" </p>

<p>I also find it very ignorant of you that you say your friend experienced "absolutely no discrimination" when you truly have no idea whether he has or not.</p>

<p>Also, the black-white achievement gap is just as large for the upperclass as for the lowerclass, which proves something other than economics is causing the gap. (though class is a problem in that a larger proportion of minorities are poor compared to whites)</p>

<p>I honestly think you just like being cynical for the sake of it. In your eyes colleges are greedy tyrants who solely care about PR and could not POSSIBLY care about the student body.</p>

<p>Wasn't it you who said that we are arguing on the way it "should be"? In which case the way it "should be", which i believe is the way it is, is that colleges should want diversity in the student body because they care about the students and not about PR.</p>

<p>and your poor example on how a hispanic student would have different views on Kent? that was lame. But i do think that having black or hispanic students involved in a discussion about US History, or Poverty and culture would add different perspectives.</p>

<p>I'm also curious to why the fact that students form "cliques" should cause schools to give up on racial diversity. Have you ever considered that the lack of exposure to racial diversity may be what caused this behavior?</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>
[quote]
It's really not that difficult to understand. You are asserting that the better the school, the higher its graduation rate. Duke has a slightly higher graduation rate than Chicago. Thus, by your logic, it's a better school. The only reason I point out this absurd example is for comparison with top publics; they have comparable graduation rates.

[/quote]

Ok… now you seem like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I am pretty sure that this is a fact. No, I am not asserting that Duke is better than Chicago because it has a slightly higher graduation rate. Since Duke and Chicago are both schools of similar quality you can not apply this trend to them. Long story short, you chose a poor example to evaluate this trend. The trend only applies to schools with a large difference in the perceived quality. For example, comparing a junior college to an ivy or pretty much any other college of higher quality.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's precisely what I'm saying. What is it that's unclear? I'm saying a diverse class should have it in culture and socioeconomics. That's what should be factored into admissions. Ethnicity is a proxy. Why in the world would you want the former and can get it directly, but seek the latter? Hmm, oh right -- for PR.

[/quote]

First, you can keep on saying it’s a PR tactic as many times as you want but that does not make you right. You could at least try back up your claims.</p>

<p>Second, refer to the flow chart I made in my earlier post and it will make sense why they would use the proxy of ethnicity.</p>

<p>Third, culture and ethnicity are VERY interrelated so, according to you, we agree that ethnicity should be considered. So I guess you support AA after all. : )</p>

<p>Fourth, colleges look at your school’s profile and can infer the applicant’s socio-economic background. For example if you go to a $10, 000 a year private school or a public school in a wealthy zip code area that has 15 AP/IB classes offered, admissions officers would be able to infer that the applicant is pretty well of. Likewise, if you go to a public school in a low-income zip code that offers no AP classes, colleges will infer that you are more than likely economically disadvantaged.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Plenty of people who are URMs are not discriminated against.

[/quote]

Wow… ok, no! I think am more qualified to speak about this matter than you are since that statements indicates that you are either ignorant about this topic or incredibly naïve.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Prime example: a good friend of mine, a Mexican, was president of ASB in high school; he was a middle-class student, very popular, well-liked, and suffered no discrimination. (And yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but one which provides an example that makes your all-inclusive generalization null.)

[/quote]

Prime example!? Horrible example! ROFL! You clearly do not understand what discrimination is! </p>

<p>
[quote]
It makes mixing more difficult, but certainly doesn't prevent.

[/quote]

That is a pretty bad argument. I said that cliques “prevent students from associating with whomever they wish.” You are pretty much saying the same thing as me.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's "severely." I would say that equality has been promoted much too strong for it to be considered "severely" (though I am not saying that we have perfect equality -- far from it). You, however, disagree. To see which is more accurate, we would have to examine the efficacy of equality laws and such -- how equal people are (i.e. NOT held back by stereotypes) in their lives.

[/quote]

Ok so you have no idea what you are talking about. Stereotypes have absolutely nothing to do with the law; they have to do with society. What I was saying is that many URMs are discouraged by society to be smart due to negative stereotypes regarding their intelligence. One example of this sort of stereotype is the stereotype that “URMs only get into top colleges as a result of AA.”</p>

[lmpw]

<p>This debate will rage endlessly. For those people like bob9975 and others who really believe in such a thing as a "meritocracy", they will not be convinced otherwise. I've been in elite higher education for 30 years (both private and public), I can assure you that for those of us who teach in these places and make admissions decisions, it is certainly not the case that we only look at numbers. Professors detest arrogant, "I'm so brilliant" types of students. We look for depth, sincerely, a passion for something and a deep sense of humanity. I would never be interested in teaching someone who held views like bob9975 (although I certainly do). Racist, elitist, sexist, homophobic and people with a sense of intellectual superiority are NOT what we're looking for. Nor are we looking for test takers. I can attest to the fact that by having a diverse class (meaning socio-economic, geographical (both nationally and internationally), religiously (or non-religious), as well as diverse sexual orientation) does change the discussion in classes, particularly in the Humanities and social sciences. Many top schools require a first year seminar so that these students can start off discussing issues that relate to the world before the delve into their majors. The world is much better off for this. I have had Asians students tell me that they would never go to UC-Irvine because it is TOO Asian and they're rather be in a more diverse and balanced setting. I find many students also looking for a diverse setting. Finally, I can tell you that many institutions recognize how irrelevant SAT scores are in actuality and some have stopped requiring them. Likewise, research now demonstrate that students who take AP courses don't perform better than students who DON'T take them. So, many schools don't care much about those either. I could go on and on. It's not about the numbers, it's about the TOTAL student. Scores can be enhanced by tutoring so they become truly meaningless. One of my friend who is Dean of Admissions at an elite LAC told me seeing 2400 scores are common place so that's no longer a big deal either. For those of you who would like to fool yourself into thing that AA is hurting you is a big, big joke. Essays matter, students who write well matter. It's not merely about a number.</p>

[kyledavid80]

<p>Tyler09:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also find it very ignorant of you that you say your friend experienced "absolutely no discrimination" when you truly have no idea whether he has or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, judge my arguments, not me -- as by courtesy outlined in the Terms of Service. For another, my friend and I grew up together, and have talked about the matter many times; he has never felt alienated. (The community in which we live(d) has many, many Hispanics.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, the black-white achievement gap is just as large for the upperclass as for the lowerclass, which proves something other than economics is causing the gap.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Correlation does not mean causation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I honestly think you just like being cynical for the sake of it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I honestly think you're wrong. =)</p>

<p>
[quote]
colleges are greedy tyrants who solely care about PR and could not POSSIBLY care about the student body.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For one, I'm criticizing Stanford and not all colleges. I'm not including publics in my argument, as they largely don't contribute to AA. And for another, only the tippy top privates will employ PR tactics as described in the thread here, as they are the ones that have to uphold a reputation to attract more students, faculty, etc.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In which case the way it "should be", which i believe is the way it is, is that colleges should want diversity in the student body because they care about the students and not about PR.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I agree -- diversity is the goal. I wouldn't want to go to a college that isn't diverse. But what kind of diverse? I think a culturally<a href="and%20socioeconomically">/I</a> diverse campus is best. You can get *culturally diverse students by looking directly at their background. Instead, colleges like Stanford will look at ethnicity, which is a proxy for the above; ethnic diversity is more for PR, though with it tends to come cultural and socioeconomic diversity. But, again, why seek the former indirectly when you can get it directly?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and your poor example on how a hispanic student would have different views on Kent?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Kant*</p>

<p>A philosopher, you know.</p>

<p>Immanuel</a> Kant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>
[quote]
that was lame.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why don't you explain yourself? Rather than saying that it's "lame," why not extrapolate and say why the example isn't effective?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm also curious to why the fact that students form "cliques" should cause schools to give up on racial diversity. Have you ever considered that the lack of exposure to racial diversity may be what caused this behavior?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's common human nature to polarize with similar people. That's simply how it works.</p>

<p>Now, again, I'm not saying that mixing doesn't happen, because it certainly does. But it's less than people like you would hope.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok</p>

[bob99975]

<p>It's funny how you all attack where I post.
As if it wasn't obvious- I despire affirmative action. I have always posted upon seeing an AA thread, and always will.
Try and stop me. I can post where I want to- just like everyone else.
Now if you have a problem with the fact that I post everytime I see an AA thread, by all means go talk to CC admins and try to get me banned. But I highly doubt that will work.</p>

<p>If you can't handle what I'm saying, then tune out. Don't read this thread. Don't read any AA threads where I post. Or don't even go on CC if you despise my views enough.
Or try and get me banned for expressing my views.
It's up to you.</p>

<p>"I would never be interested in teaching someone who held views like bob9975 (although I certainly do). Racist, elitist, sexist, homophobic and people with a sense of intellectual superiority are NOT what we're looking for. Nor are we looking for test takers. I can attest to the fact that by having a diverse class (meaning socio-economic, geographical (both nationally and internationally), religiously (or non-religious), as well as diverse sexual orientation) does change the discussion in classes, particularly in the Humanities and social sciences. "</p>

<p>I hope you are not implying that I am racist and elitist. I would love to hear why. What specifically did I say that was racist and elitist? Or is it just the fact that objecting to affirmative action and challenging the benefits of racial diversity alone makes me a racist?</p>

<p>If you like teaching kids that can't think for themselves and refuse to challenge conventionally accepted untouchables, like the benefits of racial diversity, then thats good for you. Maybe thats why you would never want to teach me- and I would never want you to teach me.</p>

<p>I have only questioned the value of racial diversity. I agree that socio-economic diversity has value, as does geographical diversity. So no, bunching racial diversity in with all other more relevant forms of "diversity" isn't going to work. Race is skin color- if they were choosing directly through culture- maybe that would have some merit. But they are choosing through skin color- not culture.</p>

<p>It's remarkable. I have asked the same question about 3 times- and the best answer I get for how racial diversity changes the college experience. I got one example- that being URM might change discussions in history class. You could easy make this way more specific. How would it change the perspective? And by how much? Could this perspective only be offered by a student of a certain skin color? Nevermind the fact that that is still extremely vague- but thats a start a least.</p>

<p>Can anyone give me anymore examples? Or are you just going to hide behind the fact that colleges say racial diversity is good?</p>

<p>"URMs only get into top colleges as a result of AA."</p>

<p>The easiest way to end stereotyping of URMs in college would be to get rid of AA.
AA only contributes to the problem.</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>jmoney00</p>

<p>"You seem to be infatuated better yet obsessed with the concept of AA and its purpose trying to prove a point that really doesn't matter...you literally troll around the forum looking for AA debates...all of your posts that i have seen has centered around this subject"</p>

<p>stalk much?</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>"I've been in elite higher education for 30 years"</p>

<p>ok, we get the point</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>"Likewise, research now demonstrate that students who take AP courses don't perform better than students who DON'T take them."</p>

<p>We're talking about Admissions, not general performance. As for...</p>

<p>"I would never be interested in teaching someone who held views like bob9975 (although I certainly do). Racist, elitist, sexist, homophobic and people with a sense of intellectual superiority are NOT what we're looking for."</p>

<p>I'm like bob9975 because I believe that AA is wrong. But i'm not racist, elitist, sexist, or homophobic. How did you jump from AA to homophobia in the first place? Yes, SOME URMs have to deal with serious disadvantages, and these circumstances should be taken into consideration. As for racism, there will always be bigots out there, how does that qualify anyone for admission over someone who is fortunate not to have been in that situation? If it is so important to an applicant, it should be talked about in the essay, and the application should never ask for race.</p>

<p>though some people may have been put in seriously disadvantaged situations, not every URM can hide under the umbrella of AA</p>

[ixjunitxi]

<p>stalk much? umm no...debated with him on past threads? yes </p>

<p>"fortunate not to have been in that situation"</p>

<p>good consider your self fortunate and move on...unfortunately unless policies like AA are forced down peoples throats there will still be "unspoken" racism and segregation in many schools..like you said there will always be bigots out there, even admissions officers</p>

<p>"Race is skin color- if they were choosing directly through culture-"</p>

<p>colleges do choose directly through culture thats why on every app is says "african-american black"...i mean i have seen indians and dominicans that were black...soo there not looking at purely skin color</p>

[lmpw]

<p>I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I feel very, very sorry for those of you who actually believe that AA impacts in any significant way admissions. There are so many other categories of people who get equal or greater priorities. The fact is, there many high scoring students. There are endless numbers of 4.0 GPA students. Applicants who have done impressive things and still get denied. This will continue to be the case. I feel very sorry for those of you who have so much time making yourself believe that somehow "lesser" applicants have displaced you. I've provided you information as an insider for many years. There is so much excellent published research on contemporary admissions practises (as well as what has happened in admissions historically) that you need to read more and react less. This sense of entitlement and superiority will come through in your application and assuredly result in your denial. Happy Holidays</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>"unless policies like AA are forced down peoples throats there will still be "unspoken" racism and segregation in many schools"</p>

<p>what about the backfiring effects of AA? it does affect non-URMs, isn't that basing decisions on race, separating by race? sure, as mentioned before, people might not get in solely based on race, but it can definitely tip the decisions one way or another.</p>

<p>segregation is separate, "paration or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means": webster's</p>

[ixjunitxi]

<p>"people might not get in solely based on race, but it can definitely tip the decisions one way or another."</p>

<p>As mentioned before, Yes the same way being a female applying to an engineering school, same way being a legacy vs a non- legacy might, or a athlete vs. a non-athlete, or asians at LACS, rural students over more qualified urban students, intended male nursing students over more qualified female nursing majors, black male education majors over more qualified female black educators, top private school kids over top public school kids, development case over non-development case, first generation over one who isint ....anyway you look at it decisions can be tipped one way or another based on practices you consider unfair...its life...</p>

<p>I'm going to bow out of this thread as well...</p>

<p>learn to embrace diversity and the value that different races/cultures can add to a class room...you think you may have all the answers but there is a reason why most schools have this policy in place... stay humble..</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>cookiemon have you read any part of the last 3 pages of this thread or are do you simply argue for the sake of arguing. </p>

<p>none of your posts on this page contributed anything or made any point. </p>

<p>"I'm like bob9975 because I believe that AA is wrong. But i'm not racist, elitist, sexist, or homophobic. How did you jump from AA to homophobia in the first place? Yes, SOME URMs have to deal with serious disadvantages, and these circumstances should be taken into consideration. As for racism, there will always be bigots out there, how does that qualify anyone for admission over someone who is fortunate not to have been in that situation? If it is so important to an applicant, it should be talked about in the essay, and the application should never ask for race."</p>

<p>how did that make any sense. "um, yes some people are at a disadvantage, and some people are racist, and some people are poor, but why should the lucky people be punished for their luck!!!!???" </p>

<p>Nobody is being punished. College isn't, and shouldn't be, a meritocracy. Admissions isn't another competition, get over it. </p>

<p>Racial diversity has benefits whether you like it or not. And race and culture are very interrelated so it can serve as a proficient proxy as you can probably assume that having more black or hispanic students on campus with result in more black or hispanic culture on campus then if there were none. How much benefit is not something to be judged by you as you have absolutely no credibility to the issue and probably have not even gone to a racially diverse college.</p>

<p>"what about the backfiring effects of AA? it does affect non-URMs, isn't that basing decisions on race, separating by race?"</p>

<p>-you said what about the backfiring effects, then didn't give any effects. And you said it affects non-URMs, then also didn't state how in anyway. With regards to the fact that college is NOT a meritocracy both those statements are false. And no they are not separating by race in holistic admissions in that everything is viewed in context and their are not separate processes for different races.</p>

<p>^^bob, does AA make you feel that you're superior to black students? Does it make you think that all black or hispanic people are dumb?</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>"what about the backfiring effects of AA? it does affect non-URMs, isn't that basing decisions on race, separating by race?"</p>

<p>-you said what about the backfiring effects, then didn't give any effects. And you said it affects non-URMs, then also didn't state how in anyway. With regards to the fact that college is NOT a meritocracy both those statements are false. And no they are not separating by race in holistic admissions in that everything is viewed in context and their are not separate processes for different races.</p>

<p>the separating by race was part of my second part, the definition of segregation.</p>

<p>as for no evidence for the negative realitites of AA, where in the world have YOU been for the past 10 pages? This whole discussion started with the posts of extremely (academically) qualified and well rounded non-URMs that were rejected from SCEA. I assumed you would have read these posts before ranting about who college is not a meritocracy.</p>

<p>As for this little statement, my argument is that college SHOULD be a meritocracy, in my opinion. Is it so wrong for me to share my opinion when you blare yours in others' faces. regardless of your fleeting lecture here, i still believe that AA affects non-URMs in a negative way. If you want evidence, look up some of the rejected threads or the posts from the SCEA thread.</p>

<p>"I'm like bob9975 because I believe that AA is wrong. But i'm not racist, elitist, sexist, or homophobic. How did you jump from AA to homophobia in the first place? Yes, SOME URMs have to deal with serious disadvantages, and these circumstances should be taken into consideration. As for racism, there will always be bigots out there, how does that qualify anyone for admission over someone who is fortunate not to have been in that situation? If it is so important to an applicant, it should be talked about in the essay, and the application should never ask for race."</p>

<p>how did that make any sense. "um, yes some people are at a disadvantage, and some people are racist, and some people are poor, but why should the lucky people be punished for their luck!!!!???" </p>

<p>This was my response to lmpw's post, not yours. Read his/hers</p>

<p>"Nobody is being punished. College isn't, and shouldn't be, a meritocracy. Admissions isn't another competition, get over it. "</p>

<p>out of curiosity, are you a URM? I do think that at some point, before this madness of college admissions began, college was a meritocracy of sorts. If it was all just a gamble, how would these schools have produced the engineers, doctors, lawyers, and politicians that they have. IF it was all just a gamble, then every school would be the same. </p>

<p>And if you say its not a gamble, then if its not a gamble and its not a meritocracy, what is it?</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>
[quote]
I do think that at some point, before this madness of college admissions began, college was a meritocracy of sorts.

[/quote]

College admissions have never been about meritocracy. Minorities used to be actively excluded from ivy leagues. For example, the anti-semitic Numerus Clauses was once used by colleges and universities to reduce the number of Jews. Another example that is less extreme is how being a recruited athlete or a legacy used to bear much more weight in the admissions process. For example, take Dexter Manley, a former football player for the Washington Redskins. He played football for Oklahoma State University and supposedly studied there as well despite being functionally illiterate.</p>

<p>One thing that I find funny though is how everyone looks towards the usual societal scapegoats: Africans/African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. Fact is that these groups make up such a SMALL percentage of college students. The real issue here is that the college admission process is still unfair to minorities in general. </p>

<p>1.) Legacy status mainly benefits caucasians since caucasian applicants are the most likely to have parents who went to college. </p>

<p>2.) To a certain degree this is also the case with athletic consideration since whites and blacks make up a majority of athletes. (I know this is a generalization but when considering all college sports it fits pretty well.)</p>

<p>3.) The whole concept of URMs and ORMs hurt minorities. These concepts imply that there ought to be a set amount of minorities attending colleges.</p>

<p>cookiemon90: I do agree that there should be "meritocracy." However, I do not believe that GPAs and test scores are the only things that should be considered. (I'm not sure but it seems as though that's what you have been saying.) I think that the applicant as a whole should be considered.</p>

<p>The purpose of AA is to allow colleges to consider race. AA DOES NOT mean preferential treatment or quotas. In order to consider the applicant as a whole, colleges should be allowed to consider race since that is a part of a person's identity; thus, AA should be allowed.</p>

<p>EDIT:
Check these sites out. They are very, very informative:
Asian-Nation</a> : Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues :: Affirmative Action
Myths</a> and Fact about Affirmative Action</p>

[lmpw]

<p>Newjack88, well said. I haven't been able to get through to the people who actually think that URM (who they seemed to think are all unqualified) are keeping THEM out of these coveted spots in these elite institutions.</p>

[cookiemon90]

<p>"who they seemed to think are all unqualified"</p>

<p>for goodness sakes, pal, I never said that ALL URMs are "underqualified". I said that AA isn't fair.</p>