<p>@newjack
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
A colorblind admissions process promotes equality and a system that operates more on the basis of merit. Last time I checked, equality is a social good, as is a meritocracy. If you are more qualified than someone else, you should be rewarded.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's not get into a debate about whether or not college admissions should be a meritocracy. We're talking about Affirmative Action here. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, try to on topic. Also, I'm pretty sure that you conveniently made up that a "meritocracy" is considered to be a social good.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Did you completely miss the words "colorblind admissions process"? Gee that seems pretty on topic doesn't it?</p>
<p>Alright if you really don't think making things more merit based is a good idea, why don't we just have colleges stop asking for GPA, standardized tests, and all of that, just shove a bunch of names in a computer and pull them out randomly?</p>
<p>A system that rewards you for your achievements is GOOD. If you prove yourself more capable than your peers, you should be chosen over them.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I think it is very interesting that this argument always comes up in Affirmative Action discussions. These people seemed to be so intent on questioning the merits of certain group's admission into colleges that they forget about their own group. In every ethnic group there will be people with lesser qualifications who get in over people from that same ethnic group with higher qualifications.
[/QUOTE]
In case you haven't noticed, people HATE it when a less qualified person gets in over a more qualified person, even when they are of the same ethnicity. Besides this happens far less often than it does when you involve UMRs.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
No one is saying, or even implying, that the Supreme Court is infallible. However, their ruling that seeking diversity of all kinds is a societal good is definitely a decision that will be applauded in history.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, i'm sure having diverse hair colors, shoe sizes, and nose shapes is a wonderful pursuit. When you say "all kinds" you of course limit it to only factors that YOU personally consider important. but to get back to the point, you honestly cannot predict that 100 years from now people will celebrate the decision.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
No they are different. In one case you are excluding entire groups of people, whereas in the second you are not excluding anyone. Also, I find it interesting that your example includes an African American "getting in over" an Asian. Why can't it be an African American "getting in over" a Hispanic, an African American "getting in over" a White, or, I know this is pretty crazy, an African American "getting in over" another African American?
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean you aren't excluding anyone????? Those spots for the less qualified UMRs had to come from someplace. So yes, you are excluding the qualified whites and asians who actually deserve those spots.</p>
<p>Also, I chose to use asian and african american as they are at opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to affirmative action. It can be any of the other examples you listed except the last one, as an African American getting in over another African American is completely unrelated to affirmative action.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Your example does not make sense because WASPs have never been excluded from college admissions. Also, you're example is implying that Affirmative Action can only benefit one group at a time, which is incorrect. Affirmative Action works to promote racial, gender, geographic, etc. diversity.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I think the problem here is how you define inclusion and exclusion. You don't look at the issue in terms of individuals, you look at it in terms of arbitrarily defined groups. You think of exclusion as under representation of a group not because of intervention, but because members of the group are as a whole less qualified than other groups. When I think about exclusion, I think about students who are more qualified than others being denied admission because they were born a certain race.</p>
<p>So yes, the current form of affirmative action does exclude asians and whites from college admissions. Deserving asians and whites are being denied admission. Be it for whatever reason, affirmative action excludes.</p>
<p>@Tyler
[QUOTE]
^several logical fallacies JP. First, the idea of overhauling the college admissions system into a meritocracy is both undesired by the public and bad for the nation. In order for a pure meritocracy to exist an absolute standard of what is merit would have to be forged. This standard would inherently favor those currently in the majority and balance against the minority. That is why holistic admissions allows for the context of achievement and fit within a school to be considered and is universally better regarded.
[/QUOTE]
I never argued for a pure meritocracy, though I firmly believe that college admissions do need to consider issues primarily with regards to merit.</p>
<p>Besides, asians do plenty well under the current system and they are hardly a majority group. Sure they're overrepresented in universities but they remain a minority, thus your suggestion that only the majority benefit from status quo is fallacious.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Second, the idea of "more qualified" does not exist in the context of holistic admissions. That idea was invented by the arrogant who want to believe that their 2300 SAT score makes them more deserving than someone with a 2100.
[/QUOTE]
The idea of more qualified does indeed exist in the context of holistic admissions. If it were two white kids with similar gpa, ecs, and essay: one with a 2100 and one with a 2300, it's obvious which one would be admitted. Why shouldn't the standard hold across racial boundaries?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And finally, the idea that you should be "rewarded" for your false sense of "more qualified" is flawed. Admission to a college is not, and has never been said to be, a reward for anything you have done. Colleges with holistic admissions are not obligated to take any student, only to build the best incoming class for their goals and vision. In this way, those who are accepted were the "most qualified" and those who are rejected were not.
[/QUOTE]
Yet in many ways, admission to a college is a reward for what you have done. You have studied for hours on end to earn your SAT score. You have sacrificed in order to maintain your GPA. You have set aside your own personal time for your extracurriculars. Why? Because you want to go to your dream college.</p>
<p>Is it really right for colleges to take all of your work and throw it out the window for an arbitrary reason like race?</p>
<p>And yes, there is definitely such thing as more qualified. Sure 20 points on the SAT tells you nothing, but when there is a 200 point SAT gap and a huge difference in extra curriculars, as well as completely different GPAs, you know someone is being cheated here.</p>