how much does being a URM really help?

Applying to College
41

<p>and there you sidestep the entire issue im talking about. </p>

<p>AA that isn't to compensate for what a group lacks, thats what adcoms take into consideration when viewing the app, but AA as a means of promoting diversity.
Having a wide range of social classes= economic diversity
Having a wider range of races= racial diversity</p>

<p>fabrizio, while socioeconomic includes all of the races, it doesn't include giving an advantage to all socioeconomic classes, including the lower middle class.
And while racial AA does not give an advantage to all races, it does give an advantage to members of all classes. </p>

<p>They're both specialized and are exclusive to who they intend to help.</p>

<p>And if you do not support judgment of skin color, why do you support judgment of class? </p>

<p>Acar, if you are going to say that AA is primarily to make up for disadvantage groups, people could very easily argue that being a URM has just as many if not more tangible downsides, and could argue that being a poor URM has more of a disadvantage as a poor ORM, and that a rich URM has less of an advantage as a rich ORM. That argument is simply not solid enough to base your defense off of.</p>

42

<p>@Tyler</p>

<p>Let me ask you a question; why are racism and severe discrimination justified in promoting "racial diversity," a nebulous objective that never seems precisely defined and never seems quite fulfilled? Is diversity a compelling enough objective to enforce intense, systematic racial discrimination?</p>

<p>
[quote]
And if you do not support judgment of skin color, why do you support judgment of class?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I don't personally support the use of affirmative action to promote "economic diversity," there is a real disadvantage in being poor. A wealthy black family whose kids do well in school cannot be said to be seriously disadvantaged by race.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Acar, if you are going to say that AA is primarily to make up for disadvantage groups, people could very easily argue that being a URM has just as many if not more tangible downsides, and could argue that being a poor URM has more of a disadvantage as a poor ORM, and that a rich URM has less of an advantage as a rich ORM. That argument is simply not solid enough to base your defense off of.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there any real disadvantage in being a rich URM? Real racism has just about vanished from our society, and the small amount of prejudice that remains in some people in the rural south is nowhere near the amount necessary to attempt to justify racial discrimination against whites and Asians in the north.</p>

43

<p>@ aristotle,</p>

<p>Thats where you get into the never-ending argument. YOU don't know that there isn't discrimination. YOU don't know that there is no disadvantage for being a rich URM. So YOU can't say either way.</p>

<p>and i think that you are extremely exaggerating when you say "intense systematic racial discrimination", it has been cited numerous times that the number of AA admits is so small that it hardly affects other members of the applicant pool at all.</p>

<p>& discrimination against whites has yet to be seen in AA situation, the only times conflict comes along is when Asians, the most overrepresented group, face increase competition at colleges that feel that taking in 40% asian students limits their racial diversity. </p>

<p>That is simply a case of "glass half-empty" approach. Instead of seeing it as helping urms and increasing the urm admits, some people view it as decreasing the asian and to a lesser extent the white admits.</p>

<p>You could easily say that justifying socioeconomic AA is severe systematic discrimination against the middle class. </p>

<p>My main point is, it's either all or nothing, you can't justify socioeconomic AA w/o also justifying racial AA.</p>

44

<p>Affirmative action is a bandaid. It tries to artificially rectify the main problem: there is an underrepresentation of certain races in higher education. But it is not effective in that, even with the boost, there are simply not enough high scoring minorities. In other words, even by giving minorities 150-200 points on the SAT's, they are still underrepresented. And then there is the resentment from other races, the "side effects" of AA. This is why it has been voted down everywhere it's come up for a vote.</p>

<p>What we should be attacking is the underlying cause. The reason minorities are underrepresented in college is the same reason why they are overrepresented in professional sports: they see the NBA, rather than college, as the key to a happy, financially-secure life. Consequently, they spend more time on the playground and less time at their desk. Asian immigrants do so well not because they start out richer than blacks (heck, my family lived for years on a $9000 yearly income) but because they know education is the best way to climb the socioeconomic ladder. </p>

<p>I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood. Went to schools that were (and still is) 80%+ black. These kids simply didn't care about schoolwork. They never did the HW. It wasn't because they were poor. I was poorer. It wasn't because they faced racism. I was the one called "Bruce Lee" and "Ching-Chung" all the time. They simply didn't see education as important. </p>

<p>If we truly want to NATURALLY increase minority test scores, if we truly want to raise the level of minorities up to the standard we currently set for ORMs (instead of lowering our standards via affirmative action), we need to address this underlying attitude. We need to improve the education of minorities before college application time (ie when they're in elementary-high school). </p>

<p>You're probably wondering: "Wouldn't this be expensive to implement?" After all, we would have to spend money to improve inner city schools and hire better teachers. Well, I ask you to look at the statistics. How many Asians are on welfare? How many Asians are in prison? Asians aren't biologically more intelligent than blacks. They don't have a gene that predisposes them to studying. The only difference is the cultural view of education. If we spend a little time and money to change the way education is perceived by URMs, we will get far reaching effects that will repay any investment we put in, including lower crime rates and less need for welfare. </p>

<p>Affirmative action doesn't fix any of the problems in society. All it does is send a SMALL handful of rich URMs to Ivies every year and cause a BIG firestorm of controversy and resentment between races. Get rid of affirmative action, rip off the bandage, and start attacking the actual problem.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Thats where you get into the never-ending argument. YOU don't know that there isn't discrimination. YOU don't know that there is no disadvantage for being a rich URM. So YOU can't say either way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're absolutely right! YOU certainly can't say either way, and so the burden of proof falls on YOU, yes, YOU, to prove that there is racial discrimination. If you can't do this, then your rationale for racial discrimination falls apart.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and i think that you are extremely exaggerating when you say "intense systematic racial discrimination", it has been cited numerous times that the number of AA admits is so small that it hardly affects other members of the applicant pool at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Quite small, indeed. Let's use the example of UCLA:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Next, note that in 1995, the last year when racial preferences were both legal and in full force, 48% of black applicants to UCLA were offered admission. In 2006, with such “affirmative action” no longer legal, 11.5% of black applicants were accepted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.discriminations.us/2007/05/the_measure_of_preference_at_u.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.discriminations.us/2007/05/the_measure_of_preference_at_u.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There were 2,173 black applicants to UCLA in 2006. If affirmative action was still in force, approximately 48% of them, or 1,043, would have been accepted. With affirmative action banned, however, only 11.5% were accepted, or 249. That's 794 students who got into UCLA in 2006 who would not have gotten in if affirmative action were still enforced, and this isn't even taking into account the other non-black racial beneficiaries of affirmative action.</p>

<p>Besides, even if affirmative action helped only a single black freshman per year, I'd still be absolutely opposed to it, because that's one white, Asian, or Hispanic student who'd be racially discriminated against. It's a matter of principle, not of magnitude.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Affirmative action doesn't fix any of the problems in society. All it does is send a SMALL handful of rich URMs to Ivies every year and cause a BIG firestorm of controversy and resentment between races. Get rid of affirmative action, rip off the bandage, and start attacking the actual problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I want to shake your hand. Affirmative action mostly benefits a few wealthy black and Hispanic students every year, many of whom aren't even American (such as recent African immigrants), and produces far too much racial tension to justify its existence. The underlying problems lie in the URM communities, and NOT in supposedly "racist" societies or in poverty.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
…while socioeconomic includes all of the races, it doesn't include giving an advantage to all socioeconomic classes, including the lower middle class.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Socioeconomic affirmative action does not give an advantage to all socioeconomic classes. I have never suggested that socioeconomic affirmative action be used to give an advantage to all socioeconomic classes. Rather, I have suggested that it be used in place of race-based affirmative action to help the disadvantaged, who, as you acknowledge, may be of any race.</p>

<p>I support a judgment of class over a judgment of race because of the two, class is the better indicator of a student. As Acar123 says, being poor often means fewer opportunities and a less competitive environment. Being an “under-represented” minority, however, could be different. Wealthy “under-represented” minorities have many more opportunities than their poorer brothers do.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]

…the only times conflict comes along is when Asians, the most overrepresented group, face increase competition at colleges that feel that taking in 40% asian students limits their racial diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I notice that you’re back to using racial diversity instead of ethnic diversity. Perhaps you realized that your usage of ethnic diversity backfired when I pointed out the diversity of ethnic groups originating from Asia?</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
I don’t support race-based affirmative action because it involves a judgment on skin color. Socioeconomic affirmative action does no such thing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. Which is worse in this society, being black or being poor?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Being poor = Less oppurtunities, less competitive environment
Being black/Hispanic = ???

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously they aren't the same.
While I may be able to elevate my socio-economic class and reduce the stigma and descrimination form whites both conciously and subconciously, I think we can agree that you can't eliminate your skin color/gender and the associated stigmas. </p>

<p>It's laudible that so many have a mindset of striving to be colorblind and more accepting of people different than ourselves. We still have a LONG way to go. AA in and of itself is not going to "cure" all or even most the disparities that are between urms and the majority. But it can be an effective option to create opportunities for minorities that otherwise have not been there in abundance. When there is a real disparity in the quality of public education for the masses of minorities who want a quality education, it's tough to compete when your typical inner city school(which the majority of blacks and latinos attend) has:</p>

<p>Many teachers(up to 40% or more) not certified or having a background to teach the subjects they are teaching;</p>

<p>Many black students, particularly black males, labled learning disabled and having "behavior problems" i.e. LD, ADD, etc.</p>

<p>Tracked disproportunately into less challenging classes and discouraged from college prep, honors and AP classes. Eventhough when they have shown the potential to be able to handle the more demanding work;</p>

<p>When the average inner city hs graduate education is comparable to a white with an 8th grade education;</p>

<p>When in one study, 25% of teachers polled think that black children are inherently less capable of learning than their white peers;</p>

<p>It goes on and on. I'm not blind to the many self destructive behaviors and attitudes in the latin american and black community. There has to be accountability there too. But the struggle continues. </p>

<p>If you would be interested in truly having a well articulated counterviewpoint on who REALLY has benefitted from affirmative action, may I suggest <a href="http://www.timwise.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.timwise.org&lt;/a>. </p>

<p>You may not agree with his viewpoints, but if you are interested in a broader perspective in this AA debate, I strongly recommend taking a view at his essays. If you are honest with yourself, if nothing else, these essays will give you food for thought.</p>

<p>An excerpt from one of his essays;</p>

<p>In short, and let us be clear on it: race is not a card. It determines who the dealer is, and who gets dealt. Tim Wise</p>

49

<p>So wait aristotle, you first say that AA creates a huge impact and emphasized the volume of students that it helps, yet then you go on to say that it only benefits a few wealthy students. Thats a complete contradiction, you should try to remain consistent in your arguments.</p>

<p>and i hope you were joking when you asked somebody to PROVE that racial discrimination exists, thats simply naive. But luckily, madvile ^^^ did a pretty good job of citing just a few of the examples.</p>

<p>AND in stating that you DO NOT support AA as a means of promoting economic or racial diversity in colleges simply shows that your interests do not match those of the university or many of its applicants. At that point it is your difference in tastes that'll keep you from every being satisfied with that side of the argument. You just don't value economic and racial diversity enough to actively seek it out.</p>

<p>norcalguy, </p>

<p>I think that your idea of racism is very VERY skewed. While you may have been called bruce lee or ching chung, thats not the kind of racism that stunts achievement. Asian racism in fact pressures them to succeed academically because many less worldly teachers have already stereotyped them as super-geniuses. Numerous studies have shown (ill try to give specifics later but i'm pretty sure some things by freud and other sociologists/psychologists) that people are naturally driven to fulfill the stereotypes people have of them because it's easier and more acceptable. Not that that justifies anything, i'm just clarifying the difference between the racism asians face and the racism urms face.</p>

<p>I completely agree with you that AA will not completely solve the problem. What i disagree with you on is that you believe that AA should stop first, then we should improve k-12 schooling, i believe that AA should continue while we improve K-12 schooling to correct the situation as quickly as possible. Perhaps keeping AA in place will motivate those AA opponents to invest more in the improvement of schooling so that AA can be rid of as soon as possible. It simply doesn't make sense to discontinue AA until we've already aided K-12 schooling. </p>

<p>Whether or not you support AA to make up for disadvantages, you still have to keep in mind that a large part of the motive behind AA is the importance of racial and socioeconomic diversity. AA would have NO effect if those groups weren't disadvantaged so the sooner we work to correct those disadvantages the sooner AA will become obsolete.</p>