<p>
[quote]
How presumptuous is that? I agree with Wildfower on how you make baseless suppositions on something that completely does not affect you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I rendered no such assumptions; my post was pure speculation on the possible implications of affirmative action policies. To ignore them is sheer ignorance, as you are so capable of demonstrating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your entire thought process is tainted with solecism and you have denegraded the entire purpose of AA: cognitive learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I once thought the same way you did, but some articles on reality changed that...
... need I utter "Bill Cosby" and "affirmative action" in the same sentence.</p>
<p>Using euphemisms only renders your claims more spurious. "Cognitive learning", or so you say, may be the justification for such programs, but that is hardly what is being encouraged empirically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Acclimating to the need of diversity in top schools helps create a broader panoply for aggregate learning and understanding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Diversity"? Another silly euphemism employed be colleges. Universities might not employ racial descrimination in admissions, but they definitely promote thought and ideological discrimation. Students who do not fit "their mould" of what is "virtuous" or what is "the good life" are not admitted. It is perfectionism in disguise. Only fools fall prey to the semantic sleight-of-hands employed daily by competitive schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps you can learn something from that black student in your African American Studies class at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will not dispute that; I am not racist. You commit an atrocity to logic by claiming that since I do not endorse AA, I am somehow against the African American population at large. All I am asking is that individuals of different races be judged on identical criteria, with no benefit being given to any specific group of persons. You may argue that the socio-economic status of African Americans, Hispanics, and native Indians are not conducive to equalizing the credentials of their respective applicants, but how long can we use that as a justification? A plethora of Asians immigrated in the 70s, and many had to live in the same degrading socio-economic circumstances as other minorities, yet we are now observing that an excess of students from such backgrounds are rising to the top, thus exluding Asians from the "URM" category. Why have African Americans, Hispanics, or Native Indians done the same? I am not employing an a priori argument against racism. I am asking you to consider the empirical evidence. Affirmative Action programs might be providing disadvantaged students with access to valuable resources, but the problem is that many students who are classified as URMs see AA as implicitly affirming that they need not put as much effort. AA policies are sending the wrong message.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, why are you being so absolute with this matter? What about those students (like the OP) that have terrific stats?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is great; nowhere have I implied that URMs with terrific stats should not be admitted. Perhaps it would be prudent for you to disregard your passions when arguing with me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moreover, AA is not going to affect YOUR chances on admission. Why would they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am Asian, think again;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
AA Minorities represent only an infinitesimal portion of HLS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So much for accomplishing its goals...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, the most incendiary comment was how you "obsensibly" favor legacy acceptances over AA.
[/quote]
[quote]
Even more, you try to justify your claims by saying that they inherently are granted a place at top schools because their forebears financially contributed to the school's well being.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your reading skills are lacking. I never explicitly advocated that justification. If you analyze my posts again, perhaps you will be able to find the impetus for my endorsing legacy programs.</p>