<p>"Plus, giving URMs an advantage in admission makes a whole lot more sense than giving one to legacies."</p>
<p>This is a long discussion, but, strangely, I have been convinced by Michelle Hernandez that accepting legacies is actually not bad. Accepting totally unqualified legacies is, just as accepting totally unqualified URMs is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
accepting legacies is actually not bad. Accepting totally unqualified legacies is, just as accepting totally unqualified URMs is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Legacies have been given every advantage that they could possibly get in their education. Most URMs haven't. Why in the world should legacies get a leg up? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I worry that Obama has been academically trained to behave "me first' and "the ends justify the means". I expect him to continue the exploitation of Americans like his fellow corrupt Harvard buddies have: President Bush, Beranke (Fed Chairman), Paulson (Sec of Treasury), Cox (SEC Chairman), Raines (Fannie Mae CEO), etc. How could so many failures get so powerful?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What exactly about Obama makes him a failure? The fact that he became the first black man to run for president endorsed by a major political party? The first black editor of the Harvard Law Review? And do you SERIOUSLY think he's "buddies" with George Bush (who went to Yale, not Harvard, BTW) and other Republicans like Paulson, as well as the presidents of companies whose bail-out he is fighting against? And it's his "me-first" attitude that made him become a community organizer fighting for healthcare in Chicago rather than a rich corporate lawyer drone? LOL, that's a joke, right?</p>
<p>southeasttian, George Bush went to both Yale (undergrad) and Harvard (MBA).</p>
<p>"Legacies have been given every advantage that they could possibly get in their education. Most URMs haven't. Why in the world should legacies get a leg up?"</p>
<p>MOST URMs haven't. Big difference.</p>
<p>Legacies have NOT been given every advantage. I don't understand why you would say this, implying that all legacies are somehow wealthy or are always more qualified than other applicants. Both my parents have college degrees, one at a top-tier university and one at a large public. Does this mean I'm somehow given different opportunities than kids whose parents went to Harvard but are poor, or whatever? Of course not.</p>
<p>Plus, your view is clearly the myopic one of a student trying to get in. Colleges need funding, want applicants, and want commitment to the school. Legacies on average are far more likely to attend, build up already strong family connections, and will end up donating later. In other words, they're helping to school become a community that is able to financially support anyone who wants to go. They also create a tight network that helps all undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus, giving URMs an advantage in admission makes a whole lot more sense than giving one to legacies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Giving someone an advantage in admission based on the color of their skin is morbidly stupid. Now, socioeconomic background is a different story. We can't assume that all African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are poor, and not wannabe-WASPs in disguise.</p>
<p>Obama was always different and well known even within the Harvard community. It's not all due to "harvard" that he got that way. He would have done well even at a community college.</p>
<p>He earned his spot like everyone else.</p>
<p>Bush got into Skull and Bones though =P That's pretty prestigious, I'd say</p>
<p>LOLOLObama</p>
<p>
[quote]
He would have done well even at a community college.
[/quote]
I would HOPE that any Harvard grad would do a bit more than "well" at a community college...</p>
<p>Haha, lol Go Obama!</p>
<p>Baelor, I'm a double legacy at Princeton, so my view is certainly not "myopic." Nice try though.</p>
<p>"Baelor, I'm a double legacy at Princeton, so my view is certainly not "myopic." Nice try though."</p>
<p>Haha. Funny how you think your status affects my argument at all. The fact that you are a legacy does not mean that your broad, incorrect generalizations are justified. </p>
<p>Here are statements that are not justified:</p>
<p>"Legacies have been given every advantage that they could possibly get in their education."</p>
<p>They are legacies. My family's landscaper is a Harvard grad with children in public schools. How have they been given "every advantage they could possibly get" beyond having parents who value education, which applies to almost every educated family?</p>
<p>"Most URMs haven't."</p>
<p>Do you know which URMs get accepted to private schools? Have you seen admissions rates based on stats and race? I would actually be interested in such data, if they exist at all. The minorities at my school are just as rich as everyone else and have been afforded every opportunity. How can you claim that these are the kids who aren't getting accepted to Ivies when they say that they have significant URM acceptance stats?</p>
<p>The rest of my post still stands, and is not at all more incorrect because of your pathetically useless explanation of your legacy status. Does that change what I said at all? No.</p>
<p>I guess our situations are different, because I go to a city school where almost all of our minorities come from low-income backgrounds. I find it disheartening that I may be given a leg up in admissions just like them, when I have been given so many advantages in my education. Yes, my parents make <$60,000 a year, and I go to a public school, but the way they have taught me to value education and been able to help me through high school intellectually is almost invaluable. Most of my URM friends, and many of the kids I tutor and translate for, have been given nothing of the sort. I want them to get the significant advantage in admission, not me. That's all I'm saying.</p>
<p>"The minorities at my school are just as rich as everyone else and have been afforded every opportunity. How can you claim that these are the kids who aren't getting accepted to Ivies when they say that they have significant URM acceptance stats?"</p>
<p>Colleges don't look at all URMs the same. While being a wealthy African American will help in admissions, it's not worth nearly as much as being a minority from a lower-income family who goes to a public school. Affirmative Action was originally intended to help judge applicants based on how well they've made do of their situation, which is usually significantly more difficult for minority students. Sometimes because of the simple fact that they are a minority in a world that it is, mostly, white-dominated. Sometimes because of something significantly more difficult. Either way, colleges are going to see the URMs at your school versus the URMs at mine and judge them differently.</p>
<p>But this is all really beside the point. Once again, you have managed to turn this thread into an intellectual wrestling match, where you plan to come out the triumphant victor no matter what anybody else says, and the actual point of the thread has been lost. Nice going. I'm honestly finished with you.</p>
<p>"Yes, my parents make <$60,000 a year, and I go to a public school, but the way they have taught me to value education and been able to help me through high school intellectually is almost invaluable."</p>
<p>I agree. That's wonderful. But that's not a characteristic shared only by legacies, nor is it unique to them if you believe that they indeed have this trait. This is something shared by most families whose parents went to "good" universities. It really is your situation, not that of everyone.</p>
<p>"Most of my URM friends, and many of the kids I tutor and translate for, have been given nothing of the sort. I want them to get the significant advantage in admission, not me. That's all I'm saying."</p>
<p>In which case socio-economic status should be considered in admission, not race (or at least not as much). I agree.</p>
<p>"Either way, colleges are going to see the URMs at your school versus the URMs at mine and judge them differently."</p>
<p>But who gets in? I understand that they take into consideration the circumstances, but there is still a clear bias in many elite institutions toward kids who are already well-prepared.</p>
<p>"again, you have managed to turn this thread into an intellectual wrestling match, where you plan to come out the triumphant victor no matter what anybody else says, and the actual point of the thread has been lost."</p>
<p>Really? Let's examine who made a totally irrelevant claim: "Plus, giving URMs an advantage in admission makes a whole lot more sense than giving one to legacies."</p>
<p>This was in response to an obviously jesting post. I wasn't even aggressive toward you. You then felt compelled to respond to my post, and I returned the favor. Given that I responded to a response of yours, I'm surprised at the double-standard here.</p>
<p>"Nice going. I'm honestly finished with you."</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>Just ONE of the wacky things about affirmative action is that if Obama's mother was white, and he was raised partly by his white grandmother, shouldn't he have gotten just half of the affirmative action consideration that a student with 2 black parents/guardians would get?</p>
<p>Obama has yet to learn many things.
I would say it take Balls to be president because people constantly hate you.
Harvard didn't train Obama, he trained himself.
He is a bright person, who will take a few months to figure out the White House isn't what many people make it out to be. I think he is already learning that.
But seeing as how most people here like Obama, I won't attack him. Due to my laziness, the fact that he is already going to win, and the feeling of being fed up with politics...
Obama should be ahead but like a ton, but there not. If he can't win this election then something is wrong, this is the democrat's election for the taking...
either way...
McCain FTW..or loss...</p>
<p>From the way things have turned out unless another 9/11 occurs which I bet the republican strategist is hoping for; America unless more than half of its population is dead, will vote for Obama. There are too many problems in America, so ONE president no matter how competent CANNOT solve them ALL in ONE TERM. So that puts the Republicans in a very good position in 2012. i.e. Sarah Palin going on SNL because she's popular with Middle America though most people who READ and are EDUCATED particularly on the East Coast think she's a conservative nutcase and fear her. </p>
<p>Paraphrased from Sunny. I buy it. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>"Legacies have been given every advantage that they could possibly get in their education. Most URMs haven't. Why in the world should legacies get a leg up?"</p>
<p>Very faulty way to determine academic/social disadvantage. In a CAPITALIST (capital=money) society, it is a lot more about how much you make than about your skin color. Heck, your income would be a much stronger indicator of your social position than your skin color.</p>