I am hispanic. Do you think I went to college thanks to affirmative action?

Applying to College
81

<p>

You misunderstood that line. That line was meant to suggest that if you are poor, no matter your race, Affirmative Action will benefit you because poor people of all races are under-represented on college campuses.</p>

<p>

It’s about increasing the representation of under-represented groups. Thus it applies to gender, race, class, geography, etc.</p>

<p>

More complex than this. Also, Affirmative Action benefits Whites in that it protects the from competition from East and Indian Asians. Also, racial minorities are typically admitted or rejected at the expense of other racial minorities. (That’s how it protects Whites from competition from Asians.) But, the whole Asians having higher standards is an immensely complex discussion that should not be related to Affirmative Action. I’m pretty sure I addressed part of it earlier. (Whites protecting White representation and forcing minorities to fight amongst themselves.)</p>

<p>

No, “excuse” is the wrong word. You mean as a “means” to promote diversity. “Excuse” connotes purpose in your sentence. Anyways, the ultimate goal of Affirmative Action is to get rid of Affirmative Action.</p>

<p>

I think UCB it will be interesting to see if Whites continue applying to UCB in the first place. Generally, Whites flee when there are too many minorities. Even right now, more and more Whites are sending their kids to private schools even though they live in excellent school districts to protect their kids from having to compete with Asians. Anyways, I am not disputing that this can happen. </p>

<p>Honestly, it’s a bit naive to think that HYP, etc. would let what is happening in UCB happen on their campus. They would lose the prestige that comes with having a diverse, both outward and inward, student body. I would think that colleges would merely deemphasize SAT scores and add more importance to specific ECs, etc. that would not favor Asians.</p>

<p>Lastly, UCB is still holistic. An African American could write an essay about how race affected him or her and the colleges could still consider it. In addition, I don’t think that the UC’s are based on strict merit. Look at some of the UC acceptance threads with Asians with 2300’s getting rejected over other Asians from a similar background with 1600’s.</p>

<p>

If you are a member of a group that under-represented in some way, then, yes, you’ll benefit.</p>

<p>

And I keep responding the same way and you keep ducking the question. What about Whites? They are the majority, they are not minorities, yet Asians, a minority, is expected to achieve more? You and others who are fixated on targeting under-represented groups are missing the fact that Whites are what the problem is. Minorities that are not under-represented should not be considered over-represented but simply non-URM like Whites are.</p>

<p>

</a>
Jian Li is a horrible example because he lacks any sort of character. He conveniently looked past the fact that a majority of Asians who were admitted obviously had lower stats than he did. In addition, there are other factors that work against him. (One example is how colleges are rejecting more of the “grinder”, “workaholic” types.)</p>

<p>

Read the entire study. The study is actually in favor of Affirmative Action.</p>

82

<p>djvu009:
Dude, if you are against Affirmative Action you are shooting yourself in the foot. Affirmative Action is used to increase representation of under-represented groups. Last time I check, people from low socio-economic classes are under-represented.</p>

<p>Wow. Interest groups are a threat to the United States. Why is that these groups can convince individuals to do things that are not in their interest? This whole thing reminds me of how many blue collar workers are against Universal Healthcare.</p>

83

<p>“The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
Martin Luther King</p>

<p>I’m sure this quote isn’t lost on those who support, endorse, and enact AA policies. Those who oppose AA might be looking for some to “do the impossible” to catch up to his fellow runner.</p>

<p>We’ve got a long way to go people…</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you! Finally some sense in this forum. I have been saying this over and over: It is the determination of the person that determines his/her success, NOT what the person has in his/her pocket. Since you worked extremely hard, and succeeded, you were rewarded by admission to a specialized high school(and hopefully a good college), all without the help of AA. </p>

<p>Why should Harvard’s admissions committee give an African-American who grew up in the same situation as you($600 combined income, parents not educated) an advantage over yourself, when you clearly have worked hard and succeeded?</p>

<p>“Really, if you have the drive, you can succeed in any environment and climb out of any pit.” – that quote epitomizes Horatio Alger; I applaud you for putting a face onto his stories of rags to riches. </p>

<p>I then ask the question: Why should the “lazy” African-American who didn’t go home and study as much as the poorer Asian-American get an advantage in the application process? If anything, the poorer Asian-American should be given an advantage, as this student would have had less opportunity(due to monetary problems).</p>

<p>It boils down to this: on average, Asian-Americans, Jewish People, and Whites are driven to succeed. On average, African-Americans and Hispanics are not. This is due to the fact that the culture of these two groups, in general, does not reward success in education. Is it the responsibility of colleges to correct for this lack of drive in a student’s culture for education? I say not.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>And I say yes.</p>

<p>This pretty much sums up my understanding and opinion towards AA.</p>

86

<p>I’m confused, this is waaaay off topic but how the heck do I QUOTE???</p>

87

<p>

[quote]
TEXT [*quote]</p>

<p>Replace the * with /</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, that’s it, sweat of your brow that has put these above the rest of the pack. </p>

<p>Let’s totally disregard the laws and policies that PROHIBITED certain groups from home ownership, obtaining property, education, businesses, voting, etc, thus prohibiting others from the accumulation and maintainence of wealth, developing social, political, and economic capital. Compenents essential to the devopment of human capital. Let’s also disregard the fact that this was done for several HUNDRED years while other groups were able to profit and build a society that benefitted them and those like them. There’s no real reason to beleive that there should be some disparities between certain groups of people. It certainly shouldn’t be some reason to beleive that those minor obstacles can’t be overcome by the masses with a little more drive to succeed.( sarcasm off)</p>

89

<p>I don’t look at this thread for a day or so and it has just exploded… ridiculous…</p>

<p>Newjack, I have to admit it - the Powell opinion in Bakke, although it is thankfully not the reigning AA precedent today, was one of the Supreme Court’s bleaker moments in history. Even so, Powell was somewhat vague regarding the difference between “holistic” admission and quotas - a difference which I think is next to nonexistent. Yes, I know that now you will bring up Grutter from 2003. Unfortunately, the two Bollinger cases did next to nothing to resolve the AA debate. Why do you think the issue is still so muddled, when it shouldn’t be? Delivered simultaneously as they were, the two Bollinger opinions couldn’t avoid overlapping. Anyway, hopefully a new AA case will reach the court sometime soon, at which time an actual precedent can be set.</p>

<p>

</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Everyone cares more about themselves than others. Welcome to the real word.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t care about getting into college, seeing as I already am in college. To most people, actually, AA is not only a selfish issue but a matter of principle.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, great idea! More racial categorization is exactly what we need!</p>

90

<p>Madville, those laws were repealed 150 years ago! It’s about time we disregarded them.</p>

91

<p>

</p>

<p>Ernie, do you live in Princeton, or go to Princeton? If it is the latter, I may question the value of a Princeton education or at the very least the math or history departments. </p>

<p>Ever hear about Brown v Board of Educaction, equal voting, fair housing legislation, anti discrimination laws, etc? Well within your parents lifetime I would imagine. Certainly within 150 years. Not that long ago. Just because the laws were enacted doesn’t mean the attitudes haven’t remained. Of course there have been strides made to create a more level playing field, but the margins remain wide in many of the significant quality of life comparisons. The aformentioned policies help made that possible as much as good ol’ american ingenuity and hard work.</p>

92

<p>

why do I get the feeling that people here think colleges admit URMs with .09 GPAs and ACT scores of 2 over highly-qualified ORMs? They only take QUALIFIED minorities (colleges, like any other business, are about $-they aren’t going to compromise their prestige/potential donations just to let in a few token people)…I don’t know how many times someone will have to reiterate this point, but AA isn’t just concerned with race- it takes gender and area of residence into account, too. Chances are, there’s something in your background that will help you out in the admissions game (i.e. whatever you bring to the college)</p>

93

<p>arachnophobia you’re exaggerating our claims. We KNOW people with “.o9 gpas and 2 sats” don’t get in. We’re just saying that a URM is often admitted over a MORE HIGHLY QUALIFIED non-urm. In terms of #s that would be a 2000 SAT and 3.5 URM admitted over a 2300 and 3.9 nonURM who also didn’t grow up in 90210.</p>

94

<p>I was referring to the fifteenth amendment.</p>

<p>But while we’re at it, fair housing legislation and most anti discrimination laws are laws dealing primarily with the private sector; they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Also, because its purpose was separation, not discrimination, segregation itself was not directly discriminatory even though its consequences were. Read the Brown opinion.</p>

95

<p>Madville I love you! Gimmie 5…on the black hand side!</p>

96

<p>

</p>

<p>Stop saying what’s been done for 300 years blah blah blah. Those laws NO LONGER EXIST. They’ve been gone for decades to say the least. So what if certain groups have been discriminated against for centuries? The average person lives more or less 60-80 years, which only a portion of it is spent “climbing the ladder”. If immigrants who come to this country well into adulthood with nothing to start with, not even the ability to communicate/speak for them selves because they can’t speak English can thrive says a lot. Many first-generation immigrants will work in factories and waitress all their lives and earn low incomes, but that does NOT stop their children from getting the most out of FREE public education, attending college, doing much better socioeconomically than their parents have. My dad is close to retirement; he has and will probably always be making 30k a year working for 6 days a week. But that doesn’t stop me from attending college, and I will most likely be making much more than 30k when I graduate. And by the time I’m out in the work force, say when I’m 22, I will only have been in this country for 18 years.</p>

<p>So you see, the time it takes for immigrants to climb the ladder in the U.S. is MUCH LESS than the amount of time AA has existed to help blacks/hispanics achieve the SAME RESULTS. The fact that previous generations, whether for 300 years or 20 years, were at a disadvantage, does NOT serve a valid excuse for this generation’s underachievers to benefit from AA. So not only is AA unfair, it is INEFFICIENT.</p>

97

<p>Everyone ignore mikesown comments. They are distracting from the issue at hand. Every time there is a thread like this unintelligent people totally hijack the discussion and turn it into a history debate. Affirmative Action today is about promoting the societal good of diversity. (Bakke) It has nothing to do with addressing advantaged or disadvantaged groups. It’s about increasing the representation of groups that are under-represented. More often than not, these groups are under-represented because they are or were disadvantaged at one point.</p>

<p>djvu009:
Trust me, if you made your financial situation and your background known to the colleges you applied to, you got in partially because of Affirmative Action. You are a member of an under-represented socio-economic class. Being Asian and a member of such a class is a double bonus because, as a whole, Asians are the wealthiest group in this country. Thus, you are like super under-represented.</p>

<p>

I think it’s pretty clear that it’s necessary. Southeast Asians are under-represented and are, as a whole, disadvantaged; thus, Southeast Asians should be given extra consideration in the college admissions process.</p>

<p>Anti-Affirmative Action People:
No one has been addressing the key issue. Why is it that Asians (East Asians and Indian Asians) have to have higher qualifications than Whites? Why is it that this group is consider over-represented instead of just non-URM?</p>

98

<p>djvu009:
obviously it was exaggeration-I was just trying to make a point :)</p>

<p>

ok, i understand what you’re saying, but i have a question (it’s not just posed to you). I’m sure there have been a few isolated incidents where a “less-qualified” URM was taken over a “more-qualified” ORM, but do you honestly think this is the norm? surely none of you have worked on admissions committees, before… (btw, private colleges-as they are private, after all-can do what they choose; if they want a native american with a 3.99 GPA and 2220 SAT over an asian with a 4.0 GPA and a 2220 SAT, they’ll take him…) when I say “college admissions”, you say “subjective”…</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>I would hope that many here on CC don’t share your social-darwinist point of view.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As i have said before but you choose to ignore, the whole premise of “more qualified” does not exist in holistic admissions. It exists in the minds of arrogant teenagers who judge their self-worth based on how they can compare themselves to others.</p>

100

<p>

</p>

<p>Segregation, discrimation, doesn’t really matter, the results were/are catastrophic. Just because it (in your opinion) addressed the private sector doesn’t make it less valid. Public and private policy is largly reponsible for creating the large chasm between the races. Semantics aside, the points that I have made have been an attempt to illustrate how even comtemporary policies have been a major hindrance to people of color. When you add the many other complex variables, it would be easier to see( for those who look) as to why the disparities are so stark. White america shouldn’t attempt to absolve itself from its culpability in why there are these huge disparities. Nor am I a proponent of heaping loads of “white guilt”. For whom much is given, much is required. Some would say that much has been taken or stolen. Looked at from this perspective, AA would be more tolerable, if not totally acceptable to some.</p>