<p>Exile,
people on CC definitely overestimate the power which comes along with being an URM. people here are just bitter because they got rejected and would rather blame the latinos and the african americans than realize its their fault they didnt get into college. why dont we all just throw a pity-party for all the poor little white kids?
hahahaaaaha..
anyway like i said don't bank on your ethnicity to help you, it wont do that much.</p>
<p>Being a urm helps an absolutely immense amount. Personally, I know people with under 3.5 gpas, 1200 sats, and no astounding ec's who are urms and thus get into schools such as upenn, stanford, etc. Furthermore, they often get free tuition, thus raising the cost of an education for middle class working families who aren't on welfare. It is extremely unfair, but that's the way the process has developed itself.</p>
<p>Edit: I just read the above poster's message, and to let him/her know, I was accepted to Stanford (my first choice school) and my knowledge is based not only on first hand observation but also on the data from Naviance, which charts the gpa and sat's of accepted and nonaccepted students to colleges from your high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being a urm helps an absolutely immense amount. Personally, I know people with under 3.5 gpas, 1200 sats, and no astounding ec's who are urms and thus get into schools such as upenn, stanford, etc. Furthermore, they often get free tuition, thus raising the cost of an education for middle class working families who aren't on welfare. It is extremely unfair, but that's the way the process has developed itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and with those people that have under 3.5 gpas and 1200 sats... there are thousands that get rejected. URMs and non.</p>
<p>They may have had great ECs, i'm sure you don't know everything about every black person at your school. Or great essays. Because admissions at stanford and upenn are so competitive that their urms are just as competitive as their non-urms. </p>
<p>bottom line, don't listen to the people that tell you "hey your black(or any other Urm) you can get into any college!!!" because their just ignorant. It helps if your a strong student with good test scores, but it doesn't help a whole lot.</p>
<p>Derrick: "Consider an Asian student from a strict household. That student has probably not been exposed to a lax cultural attitude toward education, and probably understands the high educational bar upheld by many Asian students. Regardless of their economic status, they will statistically perform on a better level than blacks and Hispanics and native Americans of equal status.</p>
<p>I find it tiresome when people cling to tangibles and refuse to acknowledge the need to compensate for intangibles."</p>
<p>I'll ignore the fact that you feel it's ok to stereotype Asians, and I'll just assume it to be true. It will be an axiom upon which I will construct my argument.</p>
<p>Assuming what you say is true, Asians would be less likely to have many non-academic EC's because of their parents' extreme academic standards for them. Therefore, by your logic, colleges should artificially add EC's to their resume' because their cultural context has made it less likely that Asians will have them. Of course, this is not what happens. Instead, people discount their academic achievements because they assume there is a gun to their head and also say "well, they don't have enough EC's, either." So they get jobbed twice.</p>
<p>A lot of people who get into prestigious institutions would agree that being an URM helps a lot. Just because some of us feel that way doesnt mean that we're ALL bitter people who got rejected from HYPS.</p>
<p>I have to admit, I believe that the reaction from many on CC smacks of the very thing that URM isintended to counterbalance -- entrenched biases and inequities. </p>
<p>I too am tired of people pointing to URM as if AA is somehow screwing them. We admit athletes, legacies, people with great math skills but mediocre writing skills (just look at the stats in CC under Harvard and you will see several with great math scores, but v. low -~600 writing).</p>
<p>Asto the athlete argument...So, if someone has a genetic "advantage" of weighing 300 lbs. and can play lineman, we aren't suspicious, but a 3.8 with 2100s is someone we worry about?</p>
<p>I met with many adcomms who point blank said that the range of scores for applicatnts is so close that GPA and tests alone can't make or break you, (within the aceptable band, of course). Yet that is what most people point to when they worry about URMs.</p>
<p>To the issue at hand: It clearly helps. But it can only get you over "the hump" in the same way a great rec. can get you over the hump if you "only" have a 3.8 GPA.</p>
<p>The difference between a 3.8 and a 4.0 can be one C. That's how little margin for error today's student has. And a single award or rec, if it's good enough can be the same kind of game-breaker. None of these is much different from URM. And very few students are the "complete" package, so whatever their advantages are, they take on an important role that may seem out of proportion. In any case, URM <em>does</em> make a difference - just not as great a one as many here think.</p>
<p>URM clearly counts for <em>something</em>, but it is very difficult to call it a make or break characteristic, since many high end schools can fill their class 5 times over without diluting the pool.</p>
<p>I did not mean to come across as stereotyping, and next time I'll be more politically correct in choosing my words. When I say probably, I mean as compared to a URM household. And I think that we can both agree that statistically and proportionally, the truth is there. </p>
<p>But feel free to object.</p>
<p>"Assuming what you say is true, Asians would be less likely to have many non-academic EC's because of their parents' extreme academic standards for them."</p>
<p>This kind of false extrapolation of statements is making me develop an ulcer at age 16. Since fortunately I'm the person in possession of the logic that you prescribed to me, let's take it through my perspective. </p>
<p>According to DerrickA's logic, a stricter asian academic household would encourage any kind of activity perceived as SIGNIFICANTLY beneficial to college admissions. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, if you want to probe my logic, you only have to ask me a question and you will receive a response. </p>
<p>"Therefore, by your logic, colleges should artificially add EC's to their resume' because their cultural context has made it less likely that Asians will have them."</p>
<p>Again, we do not have the same logic. I do not petition that I am you, so please do not petition that you have the same logic as me.</p>
<p>According to DerrickA's logic, this is not even an issue. I was discussing the difference between STATISTICALLY TYPICAL ASIAN IN THE REALM OF ELITE ADMISSIONS to a statistically typical URM in the same realm. </p>
<p>I may have come off as abrasive, but it strikes a violent chord with me when people try to insert thoughts for me and define patterns of logic for me. I find it extremely presumptuous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being a urm helps an absolutely immense amount. Personally, I know people with under 3.5 gpas, 1200 sats, and no astounding ec's who are urms and thus get into schools such as upenn, stanford, etc. Furthermore, they often get free tuition, thus raising the cost of an education for middle class working families who aren't on welfare. It is extremely unfair, but that's the way the process has developed itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> Yet another person who feels that they know everything about everyone who got into a top school. Unless you have read someone's *entire * application, you have no way of knowing exactly what they had going for them. How do you know all of their ECs? There are so many outside ECs nowadays, the person could have done something outside of school that simply blew away the adcom. I know a girl who for the four years I went to school with her, all I ever saw her do was knit. I used to think she just liked knitting, but apparently she used to donate the hats and scarves she made to the local homeless shelter. She also used to sell what she made to students at school, with all proceeds going to buying coats for children at the homeless shelter. I learned just a few weeks ago the girl actually started her own company as a sophomore and has been selling online things she and a club she started outside of school make. Hardly anyone knew until just recently when she received the community service award at school. The point I am trying to get at is, you think you know but you have no idea. There are people in my school who I wonder how on earth they landed a spot in my AP English class. And then I read their work. You can't judge a book by its cover. </p>
<p>As for the 1200 with below a 3.5...Stats are not everything, as I already stated. And for every person who gets into a top school with those stats, someone else gets turned down. I know an African American female who had a 2370 on the SAT, 3.9 GPA and she was turned down by Stanford, Duke, Princeton, Yale and other schools at that level. And for every so called "under qualified" (and I put this in quotes because it has yet to be proven any of these URMs are under qualified), very hardworking and deserving URMs get in. Or else the graduation rate wouldn't be nearly the same for different races at these top schools. And adcoms job is to determine whether or not you are capable of doing the work at their school. How will the school benefit from allowing lesser qualified students into their school? This will only lead to a decrease in their prestige which would in turn lead to less highly qualified students applying. </p>
<p>As for the students getting free tuition...That's not always the case. There are URMs middle and upper class URMs who don't exactly need a full scholarship to go to school. And actually, the majority of the people on welfare are white because the majority of the population is white.</p>
<p>Well, KittyLow, I have a friend (who I KNOW, as in we're friends, because I know him WELL, BETTER than what an application could do to profile a person), and while he had some really nice forensics stuff going on, his GPA/SATs were not up there with everyone else. Nonetheless, he was WL-ed at the top LACs, and got a number of nice scholarships and some other LACs. </p>
<p>Now, do not get me wrong, we are great friends and he is ridiculously competent and very good at forensics. However, in terms of the admissions game that I had to go through, my friend definitely faced a very different game. </p>
<p>KittyLow, for all your tirading about how CCers shouldn't assume things, it seems that you're doing a lot of assuming yourself. You are guessing at what must be 'true.' But the thing is, adcoms generally give URMs an easier time getting in, or adcoms give URMs a nice extra EC associated with their skin color. Does that mean that the little slack that some URMs receive 100 percent facilitate their admission? No. But for many, it does. Of course, I am of the opinion that if you have had fewer resources to aid your high school education, and have done fairly well, then you deserve that break, because NO ONE can EXPECT you to just happen to have the resources to take private viola lessons, or have the time to do indpendent research when you needed to take care of your sister. [I'm onto economic diversity right now.] What bothers me, and what bothers many others on CC, is that we see middle to upper class URMs benefiting from a system that really should be helping those from the lower, to lower middle class. </p>
<p>One other major problem with your analysis KittyLow, is your statement that an "adcoms job is to determine whether or not you are capable of doing the work at their school." Well, the thing is, as a recent Harvard president pointed out, almost ALL of the applicants at Harvard are capable of doing the work. And since there is such a wide range of competent kids with ranging test scores, GPAs, and ECs, that can do the work, the adcoms job is much more complicated than your pretty oversimplification. People become upset with AA when middle to upper middle class URMs get additional benefits in the admissions game, simply because of their skin color. There is no doubt that the URMs that got into Yale this year are very good, industrious, and intelligent students. However, Yale essentially also had to to turn down a very good, industrious, and intelligent student, perhaps even more qualified, to accept a certain URM. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that these top schools have no shortage of qualified applicants, almost all of whom can 'do the work.' When admissions accept those who had the same or even more resources in high school but had an easier time getting in, people get angry.</p>
<p>Again, I want to point out that many URMs who will be attending top schools in the fall did not need that extra bump they received in the admissions office, but they surely did receive a bump and unfortunately, we will never know how large of a bump or how needed the bump was that they received.</p>
<hr>
<p>One other thing: Princeton Review hosts this thing called, "Eye on Apply" where students from accross the country journal their college admisisons process. Here is a post from Brunell after he points out that fellow "Eye on Apply" journalist, Nate, had higher stats but got rejected from places at which Brunell was accepted:</p>
<p>"Nate has much higher SAT score than me, has taken A.P.'s and all that good stuff, and still got rejected from Amherst. But there is a flip side to this: we minorities (especially Black and Latinos/as) are underrepresented in the applicant pool. Not because we are dumb; we, as a group, are generally lower achieving and there are just so many sociological and cultural issues involved that I can't explain now. I will in my next entry."</p>
<p>"Anyway, let me follow up on my last entry. If you are white and middle/upper class, in order for you to get into Harvard, Princeton, and Yale—assuming that you have a very high GPA from taking on a rigorous course load, high SAT scores, glowing letters of recommendations, and an effective college essay—you must:</p>
<p>-Be a genius and have proof. It could be a scientific discovery or taking college math courses since you were a freshman in high school. OR...
-Be super talented and nationally ranked in art, sport or any other human endeavor. The more unique the activity, the better. OR...
-Accomplish something extraordinary that left a huge impact on a community."</p>
<p>Did Brunell fall into any of this criteria? No.</p>
<p>Eye on Apply Link: <a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/apply/eyeonapply/2007/default.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.princetonreview.com/college/apply/eyeonapply/2007/default.asp</a></p>
<p>The "upper middle class urm" thing is completely bogus. Colleges don't seek URMs as a form of reparations. They're highly sought after because ethnic diversity is highly sought after. Because the pool of competitive urm applicants is smaller, colleges have to compete for them, so smaller colleges have to offer scholarships if they don't want to lose them to the top tier schools. </p>
<p>It's not like a bonus, it's just like because very competitive urm applicants are rarer, they are more valuable and when a university comes across one, it adds to the value of the applicant.</p>
<p>it's nothing to get upset over. They're still playing the same game. They still have to work hard and earn their recognition. It's like gold getting mad at diamonds. There's nothing that can really change it so you shouldn't waste your time being upset.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, KittyLow, I have a friend (who I KNOW, as in we're friends, because I know him WELL, BETTER than what an application could do to profile a person), and while he had some really nice forensics stuff going on, his GPA/SATs were not up there with everyone else. Nonetheless, he was WL-ed at the top LACs, and got a number of nice scholarships and some other LACs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you completely missed KittyLow's point. Yes, you may know him very, very, very well but that does not mean you know exactly what this person put down on their app. And unless you read all of their essays and other free response/short answer responses on their apps and unless you read their recs, you don't really know how "good" that person's app is. But let's ignore that for a second and make pretend you have read everything on a person's app (essays, recs, ecs, essays...the whole nine yards). You still can't judge whether or not a person should get into a school. Why? Because none of us know exactly what each of these colleges are looking for. What is their criteria? As you said, many applicants at Harvard are very qualified. How do you narrow the field down? We can try and guess all we like, but the truth is unless we some day end up working on an adcom, most of us will never know what they look at once they have determined you are capable of doing the work at their school. </p>
<p>I have a question: where are all of these upperclass URMs everyone on CC seems to be talking about? All of the URMs I know (and living in a large urban city, I know plenty), are at most working class. Seeing as how the average income for URMs is below $40,000 according to the U.S. census, I would have to disagree that only affluent URMs are benefitting from AA; there just aren't too many of them in the country. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But the thing is, adcoms generally give URMs an easier time getting in, or adcoms give URMs a nice extra EC associated with their skin color.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you clarify what this means? Are you saying that a URM status counts as an additional EC? If it only counts as an additional EC, then it wouldn't be possible for under or lesser qualified URMs to be occupying the seats of better qualified whites or ORMs because if the only difference was a single EC, then the candidates seem to be equally qualified to attend the school. As for URMs having it easier...Aside from the person KittyLow knows (URM with a 2370 on SAT who got turned down), I know quite a few similar cases. I know a Native American girl, 2290 on SAT, 4.3 GPA who was turned down by 3 Ivies, MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford. I could list a few others, but I am sure you get the point. How easy is easier if highly qualified URMs are also getting turned down?</p>
<p>The irony of it all is, the one time a URM actually benefits in any way, shape, or form from the color of their skin is when they are applying to college. There are places in this country where I, as a URM, would never dare step foot because I fear for my life and safety. There are co-ops in New York City which won't allow me to move in because of the color of my skin. There are schools (primary and secondary schools) which would not allow me to enroll because of the color of my skin. There are companies that won't hire me because my name is too ethnic, my skin too dark in tone. There are restaurants which, upon eyeing me, will not allow me to patron. There are parties, notably the Black Face parties, at some colleges which mock the trials and tribulations of African Americans and their ancestors. </p>
<p>I am against AA, but a big problem with getting rid of AA is that a lot of URMs feel as if they need it. After 400 years of being told that they are the inferior race and decades of segregation which led to Blacks attending subpar schools, many African Americans feel as if they have not caught up to their White counterparts. Some feel 40 or so years of intergration is not enough to compensate for the generations of poor schooling (or no schooling) among Blacks and that they need the edge in order to compete. Some Native Americans feel that after being forced off of their land and moved into reservations, they deserve some compensation. Some Hispanics feel that since they are immigrants, be it first or second generation, they are at a disadvantage and need the edge. That doesn't mean all URMs want or feel they need this edge (I can speak for myself and say, no, I feel I don't need it). In order to get rid of AA once and for all, people in this country need to be more tolerant. Don't say things like AA makes it way easier for URMs to get into a school because then you will have an entire generation that honestly believes they will not get into a good school unless they check their race off on their application. Don't say things like generally lesser qualified URMs get in over better qualified ORMs and whites for similar reasons as I wrote above. And don't tease or act too schocked when you find out a URM outperformed their white and Asian counterparts. I've had people call me terrible names at school (URMs, ORMs and Whites) and some even accussed me of lying when they found out my SAT score (Whites and ORMs), as if it just weren't possible or conceivable that a URM could have one of the highest scores in the school. Try to relay a positive message. Say that a URM is capable of competing against Whites and Asians with or without AA. I know their is no simple and clear-cut way to end racism and discrimination, but we could all try to end stereotypes, "boring" Asians and "lesser qualified URMs being among them.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: Whenever I talk about URMs and admissions, I'm speaking on "highly-selective" admissions, where small distinctions result in big decisions. </p>
<p>Kenny, what you say in your first paragraph is completely right, and I agree for the most part. I can however generally conclude based on the percent of students a school accepts, and their average test scores what kind of a student a school is looking for. However, in a particular year, you're right, no one except those who work in the admissions office know what kind of applicant a school is exactly looking for. </p>
<p>In response to your second paragraph, I'd like to point to data on which I have no data, but which is derived from reasonable assumptions. </p>
<p>-Becoming a first generation college student in a low-income environment is difficult.
-It's easy to succeed in high school and college when parents, relatives, and friends value education.
-It's easier to prepare yourself for college in high school (get a good HS education) when you come from a stable to affluent economic background.</p>
<p>What do all these facts mean? They mean that wealthy kids, kids whose parents value education and probably became educated and used their education to acquire their wealth, are more likely to value education and work hard in high school than those who don't have such parents, relatives, or friends. As a result, wealthier people, or wealthier URMs in our case, are more likely to be prepared for college and have an outstanding high school record, than those who don't come from such a background. Of course, there are cases where kids from low-income families become first-generation college students (in fact, there was a recent NY-times article that discussed a black student at Amherst whose mother made $26,000 a year to support three kids; keep in mind that $26,000 is a little more than half of Amherst College's tuition. And now, Amherst is recommending this student be chosen as their Rhodes Scholar candidate. It is a very uplifting story, indeed), but these cases are much rarer than the URM who went to a New England bording school and received the benefits of AA without needing them. </p>
<p>^jissell1013 - thanks for that valuable comment. I certainly have very little relevant personal experience, so your comments are very valuable. </p>
<p>However, I again point to Brunell's comments, a black student who comments on how he did receive the benefits of AA, "we minorities (especially Black and Latinos/as) are underrepresented in the applicant pool. Not because we are dumb; we, as a group, are generally lower achieving." And, unfortunately, I'm afraid he's right. Let's look to UC-Berkeley's student body, as student body molded by an admissions office that uses no AA whatsoever. Though UC-Berkeley certainly doesn't have the same applicant pool as many other national universities in the US, I think it still is valuable in this discussion. According to College Board, ** seventy five percent** of UC-Berkeley's students are either White (29 percent) or Asian (46 percent), leaving the rest of the student body either Hispanic (12 percent), Black (4 percent), or unreported (I'll just leave it at that because the other ethnic subgroups are barely represented). The Ivies and other top universities/colleges want more than 25 percent of their student population to be of a different ethnic background than White or Asian. I want the student population to be comprised of many ethnic backgrounds! </p>
<p>I think the best way to illustrate what URM status does for an application is to compare it to being a double legacy. I think URM status is more powerful than just being a single legacy, and I think in many ways admissions officer approach it similarly. Also, doing it this way is less likely to get people all riled up. When a college faces two applicants who seem to have very similar qualifications, but one is a legacy and one is not, the college is likely to choose the legacy student. Similarly, if two students have similar qualificatins, but one is a URM, then the URM is much more likely to gain admission. However, I stand by my statement that being a URM is very much like having an additional EC. In the NY Times article I referenced earlier, the article talked about a student discussion that was exploring harsh economic conditions, when the URM student asked the class if any of them had seen a food stamp. It turned out, in fact, that no one, other than the student I'm talking about, had seen them. THIS, is the kind of EC I'm talking about, a valuable experience that few can bring to the table. </p>
<p>And jissell1013, though it seems no one really likes the harsh realities of AA, if we abolished AA, a lot of campuses would start looking like that of Berkeley's, with primarily Asian and White populations, and then a little URM presence scattered in here and there. </p>
<p>Racism makes no sense to me and I clearly don't believe a student's intelligence is dependent on their skin color, but what does make sense is that students who have fewer resources, students that grow up in environments where education isn't a top priority, have tougher times excelling in high school. And unfortunately, students who generally grow up in those environments are URMs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a lot of people misinterpret that study. Just because they had on average lower SAT scores, doesn't mean they were given an SAT score "boost". It just follows that colleges don't care THAT much about test scores and the some groups score better than others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Tyler,</p>
<p>You yourself have misinterpreted the study.</p>
<p>Professors Espenshade and Chung never stated that Black students got a 240 "boost." They stated that black applicants receive the equivalent of 230 extra SAT points. Your conclusion is not found in their paper.</p>
<p>The whole "it doesn't play that big of a role" statement used to be OK. Then, we saw the results of Proposition 209, and the Supreme Court heard the case of Gratz.</p>
<p>Black admissions at the flagship campuses of the UC system dropped significantly. Racial preferences played a big role. Stating otherwise in the face of such data is laughable.</p>
<p>Michigan's old opaque admissions system was revealed before the Supreme Court and pegged as unconstitutional. Before 2003, just being "under-represented" meant an automatic twenty points, gratis. Some so-called "anti-racist" advocates argue that twenty points is trivial compared to the history of injustices some groups in our nation have had to face. And, they're right. But, that doesn't condone unequal treatment now as a recompense for past sins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being a urm helps an absolutely immense amount. Personally, I know people with under 3.5 gpas, 1200 sats, and no astounding ec's who are urms and thus get into schools such as upenn, stanford, etc. Furthermore, they often get free tuition, thus raising the cost of an education for middle class working families who aren't on welfare. It is extremely unfair, but that's the way the process has developed itself.</p>
<p>Edit: I just read the above poster's message, and to let him/her know, I was accepted to Stanford (my first choice school) and my knowledge is based not only on first hand observation but also on the data from Naviance, which charts the gpa and sat's of accepted and nonaccepted students to colleges from your high school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>looking at your posting when you, got into stanford, they don't look like a ringing endorsement to me. If you were a URM, someone would be quick to say that you displaced some "more deserving" white, upper middle class kid.,</p>
<p>but wait a minute, you wrote:</p>
<p>My father went to law school at UVA,</p>
<p>so you are some middle class/ upper middle class white kid. so whose spot did you take?</p>
<p>ACCEPTED! I'm guessing my hook was the fact that I took classes there over the summer and got A+'s. Oh and I studied abroad in China while living with host families.</p>
<p>Oh yea, stats:
SAT: 2270; Math: 700, Reading: 770, Writing: 800
SAT IIs: Math IIc: 740, Math Ic: 770, Literature: 650, World History: 650, Biology: 590 (freshman year, so I'm assuming they ignored it)
GPA: 4.14</p>
<p>Considering what you brought to the table has not placed you at the top of the class at Stanford, has it occurred to you that some people may think that you didn't deserve a spot??? If you wrote you were black, there would be a sting of complaints calling you an AA admit. But wait, you are because the biggest benefactors in college admissions is still upper middle class white kids.</p>
<p>fhimas,</p>
<p>
[quote]
And jissell1013, though it seems no one really likes the harsh realities of AA, if we abolished AA, a lot of campuses would start looking like that of Berkeley's, with primarily Asian and White populations, and then a little URM presence scattered in here and there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very possible. I ask, though, is there anything wrong with that?</p>
<p>Should we dismiss students as "not contributing to a diverse environment" because they are not "under-represented?"</p>
<p>UC again provides data that disproves the already defunct claim "it [racial preferences] doesn't do much."</p>
<p>"I ask, though, is there anything wrong with that?"</p>
<p>Was there anything wrong with Nazi germany?</p>
<p>Fabrizio - what did the Berkeley campus look like before they stopped using AA (I'm not familiar with that data)? </p>
<p>I don't think I can really answer your questions as my own personal experience doesn't really help me out. </p>
<p>I guess I wrote my last post to try to elucidate AA, and who AA is really helping. Because the fact of the matter is, many URMs ARE less qualified compared to their white/asian counterparts, but not because they are less intelligent, but because they've likely grown up in an environment where education isn't the number one priority, or they have had fewer resources at their disposal. </p>
<p>Again, NO ONE is saying URMs are less intelligent because of their skin color - NO ONE!!!! </p>
<p>On CC.com a few months ago a father of a black high school student explained that when his son was receiving 'behind-the-wheel' instruction, his teacher said that he should be prepared to be pulled over (because of his skin color), and, in fact, he was pulled over for that reason. It is the discrimination that URMs still face that is valuable, and is something that I can't exactly bring to a class discussion. But other than that, because of my limited personal experience, I'm clueless.</p>
<p>DerrickA - are you saying that without AA, no URMs will penetrate a college campus and all campuses will be all White or Asian? Are you saying Berkeley looks like Nazi Germany? Seriously, that comment did not add anything constructive to this discussion.</p>