<p>I don't even understand why they have the box for putting race. Demographic reasons my ass.</p>
<p>Well, I think this has been a very honest discussion :). </p>
<p>About choosing a doctor on the basis of race because they probably worked harder: </p>
<p>I understand the thought process, but there's also a very good chance that the URM can be brilliant and would have gotten in without affirmative action. In the Carribean and many African countries, only the best of the best can get those professional jobs due to the lack of spots in the educational system. I mean they have the British system in a lot of these places. A lot of these folk have superb work ethics that rivals and might even surpass a few of the all work no play types from East-Asia. There's also a lot of good doctors from Latin-American countries, who are in similar situations, having had to work their up to the US.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does being an immigrant help?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Assuming you’re a permanent resident (i.e. not treated as an “international student”), it depends on what continent you emigrated from. For example, if it’s Africa and you’re black, you’ll be preferentially treated just like everyone else who checks “African American.” As a matter of fact, affirmative action has had the unintended consequence of giving substantial help to the children of African immigrants. Anecdotally, I’ve found that they are some of the staunchest defenders of racial preferences, even though the system wasn’t designed for them!</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1</a>
This new study showed pre-recentered and post-recentered SAT, roughly same differences in SAT.</p>
<p>
No affect? Well, that's an understatement of the day.</p>
<p>
All of the Asian students who applied to HYP from my school hold office position, very active socially, not shy, not awkward. The URMs that got in are not even close to matching the amount of time and effort these Asian kids put into the community.<br>
And the URMs that got in had more leadership skills, charisma, drive over the ones that weren't admitted? Give me a break.</p>
<p>Re: Go<em>Newt</em>Gingrich's post on doctors from the Carribean.</p>
<p>Amen! </p>
<p>My father is actually a URM from the Caribbean. He has several brothers and sisters, one of whom became a very prominent doctor (even has a street named after him on the island). This side of my family is brilliant, and they have the strongest work ethic I have ever seen. When I spent time in the Caribbean, I visited another doctor, and felt I received superior service.</p>
<p>Here in the States there is culture of victimhood and low expectations, that the URM doesn't necessarily have to live up to their full potential to reap rewards.</p>
<p>My idea is this: eliminate all "automatic AA." Meaning that if you have a disadvantage, write about it in an admissions essay! I think that's a lot fairer than: "You're black you've obviously had such a hard life", or "You make xxk a year, you're poor." </p>
<p>Oh, and people who say "What about diversity, inclusiveness, or our other euphemisms for racism?" Diversity ISN'T ABOUT SKIN COLOR or INCOME it's about DIVERSE UPBRINGINGS, DIFFERENT IDEAS, and WHAT YOU CAN BRING TO THE TABLE! I can't learn anything from you just because you're black, white, red, or Asian.</p>
<p>For the record, I'm white, my family doesn't make a lot of money and I think my experience with two mentally ill physically disabled parents gives me a heck of a lot more of diversity than a black family making 150k. </p>
<p>AA has failed to do it's job and needs reform. Maybe overall Asians are just frankly a smarter race, and maybe blacks are just more physically fit overall. The heck with political correctness, why can't we just call it as it is?</p>
<p>Newjack, I think the "Asian problem" you propose is complete garbage. </p>
<p>Most of the top-performing Asians are savvy enough to know what you are supposed to do to fill out their application. It still does not stop them from being discriminated in the process.</p>
<p>What amazes me is the hypocrisy of many defenders of affirmative action. They scold others for not being progressive, but then throw around stereotypes of Asians as a reason why they should not be admitted. They'll say that a URM kid deserves a boost because they live in an anti-intellectual culture, and then turn around and say it is the fault of Asians because their parents discourage EC's. In other words, hey, they live in an anti-EC culture so that's their own fault. People will say there must be discrimination in the NFL because there is a high percentage of African American players but few head coaches. However, Asians are over-represented at elite colleges but are under-represented as university presidents; people interpret this by saying Asians must not have leadership abilities. I didn't live in a time of open racism toward URMs, but ironically this tells me just how capable of prejudice people must have been toward them. I can only imagine how bad it was for URMs 30 or 40 years ago. People don't use their own brains. If they are told people of a certain group are bad and deserve to be screwed over, then they just accept it blindly. </p>
<p>I think there are plenty of valid reasons for AA, and almost anybody will admit that it was necessary when it was instituted.. I'll just throw one out there. Even if a URM has perfect scores and grades, it may be harder for them to succeed at an elite college if they are the only URM there. For instance, it may be somewhat harder to find study partners or something like that. I'm even willing to accept the reparations argument, but then Asians deserve something as well considering their treatment in the last century. As with any policy, however, there are shortcomings. I am suspicious of anyone who submits that there are no negative or unjustified outcomes to this policy. It suggests to me that AA is a sacred cow to them, a religion rather than a solution to a problem.</p>
<p>I believe I have a very unique perspective on this case, considering I'm a Black Student from Jian Li's High School, who also scored extremely high on his SATs (2370) and applied to some of the same school's as Li. Now I will not debate the merits or demerits of AA, which I believe have been discussed in great length on this thread and others, what I will debate is the perceived power of AA on the admission process, the validity of Jian's "investigation", the purpose of AA, and whether or not it really is achieving its goals.</p>
<p>Now, I am of the belief that URM status can be very powerful at LACs such as AWS, which are not known to the general public and would not get a huge URM population without rigorous application of AA, however URM status isn't as helpful as one would think at the upper-end schools, namely HYPSM. Here's a little background, I too, applied to Princeton, MIT, and Stanford. My SATs and SAT II's were 2370 and 2350 respectively (not far off from 2400/2390) and I still failed to secure admission at Princeton and MIT, and highly doubt I would have gotten into H or Y had I applied. In fact, I was not even waitlisted at Princeton like Jian Li was. Even though this is anecdotal evidence, it leads me to believe that one's race is not as important as some would make it out to be and that test scores alone do not lead to admission. Furthermore, many people bring up the Black from a privileged family getting in over an Asian from a ghetto family when disparaging AA. I firmly believe that my socioeconomic status (upper middle class) was certainly evaluated in the admissions process. In fact, I know quite a few URMs who were less academically and extracurricularly distinguished than I who could secure admission to HYPS. The reason was, however, that they come far less privileged backgrounds than I, went to a high school that was predominantly minority (and low performing), and still managed to be competitive for admission to top schools. While this made me angry at first, since I knew how much I had wanted to get into Princeton (like Jian), I realized that I had a lot more opportunities than they and did might not have fully maximized them. I strongly believe that while AA does pay attention to ones race, I think socioeconomic status is employed because these days there isn't a dearth of URMs applying to top schools, at least HYPS and the ivies.</p>
<p>Now, onto the validity of Jian Li's case. I firmly believe he has every right to open up an investigation. If there is undue discrimination going on in Princeton's admissions office, I feel the public has a right to know about it. As one of our nation's premier institutions, entrusted with the responsibility of picking the nation's best students for admission, I sincerely hope we find nothing to look askance at. If there is racial discrimination, that goes beyond equalizing the playing field and recognizing different opportunities, Princeton ought to be upfront about it. I don't see how people can be against Li's suit, don't you want to know the truth?</p>
<p>The purpose of AA is a tricky one. The schools claim it is to provide diversity, and that diversity is correlated with a better college and learning experience, while some of the people on this thread claim AA is supposed to level the playing field, in essence right past wrongs. Perhaps its both or neither. My cynical side tells me AA helps the school present itself as an accepting place for high caliber students regardless of race. I think defining the purpose of AA is important in being able to assess its effectiveness.</p>
<p>Lastly, is AA achieving its goals? If AA's purpose is to right wrongs, I feel that AA is woefully failing. Admitting a few kids into top schools does not right hundreds of years of discrimination, a better plan would be allowing free community college for URMs. If AA's goal is to provide diversity, it may or may not do that. It does in the sense that, you're going to a school with people of all different races in significant numbers (an experience not all people have had-myself included) It fails however, in that, it is human nature to self-segregate amongst people like you, people with similar interests, cultures, and yes, race. This invariably happens at top schools, and things like theme houses, racial frats, secret societies and the like do nothing to help the problem. Finally, if the goal is to present the school as one accepting of different races-on paper that works wonderfully. No one will be scared of not applying to a top school due to racial tension, knowing that a significant portion of your class is part of your race is certainly heartwarming. Conversely, it is easy for a school to boast that it is equal opportunity and welcoming of all races, a win-win situation, unless you consider those (wrongfully?) denied admission due to AA policies.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it is my belief that colleges act to help themselves first, thus I believe AA is practiced mainly for PR purposes. Considering today's highly competitive admissions process, denying a highly qualified ORM has become the rule, not the exception. Furthermore, as more and more highly qualified URM students apply for admission, these schools can afford to be more selective in their selection of URM students. We see the results of such a process and now the hard question comes, is this right? Clearly in the case of Jian Li, he personally was not affected highly and there's little loss to him as a result of such an admissions process. However, this growing trend of top colleges putting their needs before others is becoming slightly disconcerting. Even though now the needs of the top colleges align closely with the needs of the public, hence no widespread outrage about the practice of AA, what if there's a time top colleges want something that is not beneficial to the public and not putting the public's interest in mind? Considering the near monopoly the top colleges have on America's sharpest minds, this could be cause for fear. Even though people will argue HYPSM+Ivies are private, they can do whatever they want, they not only have a legal responsibility to the public (through the funds they get from taxpayers), but they also have a moral obligation to the public, to put their best foot forward in improving America.</p>
<p>Affirmative action was useful I guess in the late 60s and early 70s right after the civil rights movement. I mean the horrid discrimination against blacks certainly put people at a disadvantage to suceed and it made sense to help out ones directly affected by discrimination. However, it should have only been directed at blacks and blacks alone that were specifically and provably discriminated against in the south or anywhere else, and it should have ended by at most 1990. Therefore, you would have given aid to those that actually needed it and prevented it from overstaying its welcome and causing problems of unfairness. </p>
<p>The worst thing about affirmative action today, though, is that has morphed from trying to help those that were wronged by racism into a system of trying to make a campus "diverse" as people say. I especially hate how groups that historically have faced virtually no discrimination recieve affirmative action, while groups that have recieved it are at a disadvantage such as Asians. </p>
<p>Affirmative action for white hispanics for example is ridiculous. I know a very smart fellow, who is well-performing and intelligent and extra-curricularly active enough to get into a lesser ivy on his own, but the fact that he is half descended from Hungarians that lived in Latin America will make him an absolute slam-dunk to get into a lesser ivy. This is all for the sake of multi-colored faces for the sake of having multi-colored faces.</p>
<p>A great post Cervantes, though since when have the top schools done anything but act in their own interest? They used to have Jewish qutoas to maintain their WASPY flair.</p>
<p>They probably are becoming selective in their acceptance of minorites too. Soon, once the countries societal wrongs right themselves in maybe 50 years, I dunno how they'll do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
<em>Sigh</em> Another one still in denial.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. Is that all you could come up with? How are statistics from the 1980s accurately reflective of what is going on now some twenty years later?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As if to illustrate the point, a study released in October by the Center for Equal Opportunity, an advocacy group opposing race-conscious admissions, showed that in 2005 Asian-Americans were admitted to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at a much lower rate (54 percent) than black applicants (71 percent) and Hispanic applicants (79 percent) — despite median SAT scores that were 140 points higher than Hispanics and 240 points higher than blacks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that's just stupid. Why not look at the actual numbers? I bet whites had the lowest acceptance rate, so does that mean whites were discriminated against too even though they make up a majority of the entering freshman class?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No affect? Well, that's an understatement of the day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Being Asian is a non-factor. If you think it's a disadvantage, take it to court. Go sue somebody. Just please quit whining. It's incredibly annoying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All of the Asian students who applied to HYP from my school hold office position, very active socially, not shy, not awkward. The URMs that got in are not even close to matching the amount of time and effort these Asian kids put into the community.
And the URMs that got in had more leadership skills, charisma, drive over the ones that weren't admitted? Give me a break.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are more Asians than just the ones from your school. Maybe none of the ones from your school were as interesting, talented, etc. as other Asians from other schools.</p>
<p>aigiqinf:</p>
<p>How many black families make 150K a year?</p>
<p>collegealum314:</p>
<p>
[quote]
They scold others for not being progressive, but then throw around stereotypes of Asians as a reason why they should not be admitted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If an applicant is stereotypical, he or she is not unique and he or she will probably be rejected since colleges want diverse classes. Stereotypical applicants of all races are rejected/not accepted. The stereotypical African American/Hispanic/Native American student doesn't even apply in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They'll say that a URM kid deserves a boost because they live in an anti-intellectual culture, and then turn around and say it is the fault of Asians because their parents discourage EC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Asian-problem has nothing to do with African American/Hispanics/Native Americans.</p>
<p>If URMs did not exist, stereotypical Asians would be complaining about non-stereotypical Asians getting in over them. They'll start whining about how college admissions should be a meritocracy, etc. Basically, the Asians who don't get in will still blame something or someone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, is AA achieving its goals? If AA's purpose is to right wrongs, I feel that AA is woefully failing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhhh... what about Asians and women? They seem to be doing a lot better than they were 40 years ago. Also, even African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. are better off now than they were then.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, affirmative action is merely about promoting diversity of all kinds. Please, go read Justice Powell's opinion on the Bakke case. In there he details how affirmative action should be practiced--he used Harvard's affirmative action policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ultimately, it is my belief that colleges act to help themselves first, thus I believe AA is practiced mainly for PR purposes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't deny that there is an ethical component to this too. I think that these schools recognize that it is important to have a group of elites that are as diverse as this nation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My SATs and SAT II's were 2370 and 2350 respectively (not far off from 2400/2390) and I still failed to secure admission at Princeton and MIT, and highly doubt I would have gotten into H or Y had I applied.
[/quote]
I noticed you never give out your other stats like number of APs, GPAs, all of which are essential to an application. Low GPA?</p>
<p>
What do you have in mind when you asked "Is that all I can come up with?" ? Read 2 lines below, current stats indicate the SAME problem. </p>
<p> [quote=Newjack88]
[quote] As if to illustrate the point, a study released in October by the Center for Equal Opportunity, an advocacy group opposing race-conscious admissions, showed that in 2005 Asian-Americans were admitted to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at a much lower rate (54 percent) than black applicants (71 percent) and Hispanic applicants (79 percent) — despite median SAT scores that were 140 points higher than Hispanics and 240 points higher than blacks.
</p>
<p>Now that's just stupid. Why not look at the actual numbers? I bet whites had the lowest acceptance rate, so does that mean whites were discriminated against too even though they make up a majority of the entering freshman class?
[/quote]
What actual numbers have to do with anything? The article specifically said white applicants weren't affected. </p>
<p>
What an idiot!</p>
<p>I never gave them out because people like to talk about AA in terms of a race gets +X SAT points in terms of admission. In fact, that is the premise of the Princeton Study many people seem to cite in order to prove certain races have advantages over others in the admission process. Rest assured, though, I had many, many APs (maybe 10?) and certainly a decent GPA for admission to top schools-especially considering the difficulty/profile of my high school. Just so you know, I'm not saying whether or not AA is ethically correct or not, for even I have not come to a firm belief on the practice.</p>
<p>Why is everyone focusing solely on race-based AA?</p>
<p>AA benefits white women more than URMs and disabled people..</p>
<p>And do you think white men like that white women get affirmative action over them?</p>
<p>Cervantes, can I ask you a question? You're of full African descent, right? You're not a mulatto? </p>
<p>I've been looking for a definitive example of a person of full African descent with fantastic intelligence, so I can have the ultimate comeback to those that claim blacks are genetically intellectually inferior.</p>
<p>Yes sir. I'm not sure I'd call my intelligence fantastic though. ;)</p>
<p>MODERATOR NOTE to "An honest discussion-what is your opinion of affirmative action?" thread:</p>
<p>I'll merge this thread with the FAQ thread on ethnic identification on college applications.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do you have in mind when you asked "Is that all I can come up with?" ? Read 2 lines below, current stats indicate the SAME problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. Go back and look at the point the poster who cited those statistics was trying to make.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What actual numbers have to do with anything? The article specifically said white applicants weren't affected.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point was quite simple. Using rates is misleading since each ethnic/racial applicant pool is different in terms of size.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What an idiot!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about you take some time a reread the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up to be part of CC.</p>