<p>I have been doing some reading and some say this new system will just allow them to consider race in the admission process without being held accountable to it.
So will this affect the white and Asian kids this year? Do you guys think we will see surprising admission decisions?</p>
<p>Race will be a factor but wont be able to bring in kids who have atrocious stats. However, if they have fairly competitive stats and lack in either GPA or SAT, im sure they will get that extra consideration. Race can also be the tiebreaker if two applicants have same stats. But no, unless person is a recruitable athlete, race shouldnt bring in that many "what the hell" applicants in</p>
<p>"I have been doing some reading and some say this new system will just allow them to consider race in the admission process without being held accountable to it."</p>
<p>Thats one person's opinion doesnt make it true. </p>
<p>If you deserve a spot you'll most likely get one regardless of race (I say likely because sometimes people who are deserving cannot be accommodated... I think economic situation and opportunity should play a significant role in the holistic process but definately not race.</p>
<p>Lack of opportunity has become a class issue not a race one.</p>
<p>Thats definitely true, but alot of those who are URM's are not only in the race issue but also in the class issue. Thousands of hispanic and black americans are in poor areas where they arent given the education they need to succeed nor have the motivation or reason to try in school. For many environment/class and race go hand in hand.</p>
<p>I think economic situation and opportunity should play a significant role in the holistic process but definately not race.</p>
<p>Lack of opportunity has become a class issue not a race one.
^^^I definitely agree. Things are a-changin'</p>
<p>but just because you're urm doesnt mean you are poor. this year (so class of 2007 hs) from my hs, certain people got in ea for columbia, etc. and everyone knows WHY they got in (definitely not because of grades/sats/awards)</p>
<p>so students who received adequate opportunities will need higher stats and overall more impressive applications to get in huh</p>
<p>why punish people who have a decent home life?</p>
<p>it's not punishing them at all. it's trying to equalize the playing field by taking into consideration the economic disadvantages of some students. how can you judge a person who has had no educational resources vs. one who has had rich parents provide them with everything they need? some students have parents who didn't graduate from high school, and they are living just above the poverty line. Do you think that education is a top priority for them in comparison to a student who has had both parents go to college and are pushing their children to do the same? No, not really. The first student is most likely concerned with not starving and being able to afford their housing, not education. There is too much of a delayed gratification with getting a degree that some poor people believe it is not worth the struggle, at least not while they are in high school. On the other hand, we have students with a "decent home life" whose parents take you to the bookstore and buy your SAT books so you can study and motivate you to do your homework and take a role in your education. It's difficult to treat these two equal. It's safe to assume that those with higher economic opportunities have an exponentially higher chance of doing well in regards to GPA and SAT scores because of all the things their parents can teach them and the money they have to spend. With a higher social status, all of the resources are waiting in front of you, and you're generally well aware of college opportunities well before high school. </p>
<p>How else can society narrow the economic disparity we have besides education? Realistically, i mean. Some people who are financially better off are bitter because of the special treatment others get for being a URM or poor. But honestly, how else can we fix this problem? If all the jobs and educational opportunities were saved MOSTLY for the non-colored people (white....) and the affluent, it's perpetuating a history of oppression. Because generally, that's how life is. The ones with decent economic status will generally have higher stats when it comes to getting into college. That's just how it is. It's right to change this so that the ones with less money and who can't afford all the luxuries in life (food...) have an opportunity to create their own economic advantages through education.</p>
<p>Oh, and I'm black if you couldn't tell. Slightly bias, but oh well.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with this, as long as a rich blacks will be disadvantaged and Asians in the ghetto (I'm sure some exist) are boosted. </p>
<p>People would be relatively satisfied with AA if it considered socioeconomic status and not race.</p>
<p>It's surprising how people assume that "rich" people send their kids to SAT prep and tutors, etc. Hardly anyone I knew had SAT classes, unless it was at Ikue or Ena, but that's not even related because that's for application to Keio or Waseda or Sophia, anyways, the only kids who are sent to SAT classes are usually the dumb ones. And do they help? I honestly doubt it. If you are stupid, you are stupid, it doesn't matter how much money you have. </p>
<p>I hope there are more underqualified AA admits from now on. Makes my life easier anyhow.</p>
<p>How much higher do you guys think this will raise the GPA/SAT par for those who aren't considered "underprivileged?"</p>
<p>people are unsatisfied when AA gives them a disadvantage</p>
<p>i wasn't really even talking about sat tutors, just like things some see as basic. (like princeton review, kaplan, etc..) You could easily argue that most people who do well on the SATs have bought this type of book, right? Not everyone can get 2100+ on the SATs without some sort of basic knowledge about the test and taking practice tests. But to poor people, that's 20 dollars that they have to convince their parents to give them knowing that the money should be used for food or other expenses because of their tight budget.</p>
<p>Everything I'm saying isn't law....it's okay that you have friends that don't need SAT tutors. I'm making a generalization of some things I've observed but that's hardly the case for some of the population.</p>
<p>and I have a UC GPA of 4.0, SAT I at 2130. I posted a chance thread and people were encouraging, but in light of this change and the fact that I'm from a historically over-represented race/class/location/school district, where will that put me?</p>
<p>you isn't getting in lawl</p>
<p>are you from arcadia?</p>
<p>no, I'm not from arcadia.
and I don't get your comment.</p>
<p>then, maybe troy, since i'm trying to think of feeder hs</p>
<p>and it was sarcasm</p>
<p>hahaha feeder?
Well in any case, I hope I'm just paranoid.</p>
<p>Everyone posting here is dumb. Its against the law to have affirmative action in california, thanks to a bill passed in the late 90s. In addition, the UC's never see your "race" on your application, because the race section is blocked to the admissions officer making the decision; all they see is your application #.</p>
<p>hahah i go to Arcadia its a huge feeder to the UC's! However, Arcadia is a great school and is very competitive, so i dont feel too bad about having a 3.4 uw UC gpa and a 2140 as alot of kids w/ my gpa seem to get into LA form my school</p>