<p>well put radar.</p>
<p>but basically no minority will live up to your standards because anyone who gets into an ivy will of course be assumed to have gotten in because of AA. I find it funny that no one complains about the legasie getting into the ivies. Minorities who get in must be somewhat qualified, legacies on the other hand don't.</p>
<p>u dont want me to get started on legacies theres currently a student in georgetown that i know with an 1050 SAT and a 3.3 GPA...</p>
<p>enough said</p>
<h2>I find it funny that no one complains about the legasie getting into the ivies. Minorities who get in must be somewhat qualified, legacies on the other hand don't.</h2>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>i dont think thats totally true. Legacies must be somewhat qualified depending on where your talkin about. </p>
<p>On the opposite end of the spectrum, you will see schools that will accept totally unqualified minorities and/or legacies just so they dont upset anyone/cut off funding/get sued lol. Sad but true.</p>
<p>well doogie arent legacies accepted only so they're father or whoever wont stop private funding?
And Id say that you have to be alot closer to being qualified if your a minority</p>
<p>and arent minorities accepted so they school doesnt get called "racist"?</p>
<p>And dont even attempt to tell me that schools do it because they knooow that minorities arent given the same opportunities, cause thats not the case...they just dont wanna be sued.</p>
<p>The Naval Academy or any of the service academies, which are HUGE on legacy will NOT accept you if your academics are sub-par. AA goes out the window over there too...come to think of it, I LOVE THE NAVAL ACADEMY!!! lol</p>
<p>I dont want this to cause a stirrup because this info isnt supposed to be out there...but to prove my point, there is currently the son of a well-known politician at one of the academies now. He had MAJOR legacy at this particular academy and he was not given an appointment the first time he applied, instead he was sent to a prepatory program for one year. Now depending on how he did there, he would be evaluated again and then it will be decided if he was given the appointment or not. Eventually he was, but obviously the kid had to earn it, both academically and physically.</p>
<p>So please dont make such a generalization about legacies.</p>
<p>if you dont want generalizations about legacies then why make them about minorities?</p>
<p>i didnt. I dont care if you get accepted into a school because you have the stats. There are people out there that work hard and there are people who are looking to catch a break because of their skin color. That to me is rediculous.</p>
<p>If a minority has the stats to get into a school, then why have AA? A school will take them do boost their stats. Like i said before, college is essentially a business all they care about is stats and money. I dont care who you are, you can work hard. Just because your skin has a different pigment then mine doesnt mean that you are physically incapable of doing well in school. You find me the cause-effect relationship on that little correlation. You can do well if you work hard. </p>
<p>I dont think minorities cant do well, im friends with genius minorities who will probably be YOUR boss one day. They worked hard, they dont need AA. Its the people who rely on AA and because of that dont work hard that upset me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If a minority has the stats to get into a school, then why have AA?
[/quote]
Some schools have plenty of applicants with near perfect test scores and GPAs. That's where other factors come in- essays, legacies, AA, geographical location, etc. These are used as tipping factors to distinguish between seemingly similar applicants. Colleges don't hand out acceptances to every URM who wants a break. There's no law that says universities have to be diverse, a fact many people seem to ignore. :)</p>
<p>Furthermore, stats don't really mean diddly squat in the long run. Colleges don't want tons of perfect-scoring perfectionists; they want people that will get involved and make the best use of their resources. If the person that can best do that has a lower SAT, then that person may well be admitted over someone who scored higher. If you talk to minorities at colleges, you'd find they're every bit as capable as thriving as their peers. :)</p>
<p>if ur peers r complaining y r u ranting at us? rant at them! we're not here to take all ur rants!</p>
<p>Furthermore, stats don't really mean diddly squat in the long run. Colleges don't want tons of perfect-scoring perfectionists; they want people that will get involved and make the best use of their resources. If the person that can best do that has a lower SAT, then that person may well be admitted over someone who scored higher.</p>
<p>WOW....not at all guy, in fact soo very very wrong. </p>
<p>As much as you deny it...COLLEGE IS A BUSINESS. Do you think microsoft gives a squat about who owns their software or how its used? Psh, absolutely not. All they care about is people buying it and their quarterly earnings (stats and money). Same thing with a college. They could care less about people utilizing their resources, they just wanna build more so they can advertise to you that they have them and in the long run make more and more money.</p>
<p>...especially from someone who's not even in college yet. :p</p>
<p>Adcoms DO care about people who will take advantage of the resources. A person gets an 1600 (or 2400)...so what? Will that person be more likely to become a Rhodes scholar than a person with a...<em>gasp</em>...1400? I doubt it. Universities like Harvard, Stanford, etc. like to brag about how that admit less than half of the 1600 scorers and valedictorians, so clearly there are less tangible factors involved. Universities don't have bragging rights about how many kids scored well; they have bragging rights about the kids who win Rhodes scholarships, do humanitarian work overseas, participate in breaking research, get top positions in businesses, etc. Thus, it's in the best interest of universities to admit students who can potentially succeed similarly. </p>
<p>That said, let the thread die. It's gone on way too long. :)</p>
<p>By the way, if you want to quote, do this:
<quote>Blahblahblah</quote> but replace the < > with [ ]
or
<quote=warblersrule86>blahblahblah</quote=warblersrule86></p>
<p>
[quote]
this thread needs to die now. quit whining.
[/quote]
meep
it works!</p>
<p>AA is just a way to keep racism alive.... </p>
<p>im white....but i was an immigrant that wasnt even born here.... family is in the very low middle class..... and i still circle in the same "white" circle as all the white kids that have family living here for generations..... i dont understand why race should have any part in the application process...... i really dont think you can speak for AA....until you have been negatively affected by it</p>
<p>you know what this thread is just stupid....we just keep going back and forth with a futile argument.....instead of fighting about this why dont we just pay attention to the other thread where people actually need help. I dont believe CC is here for us to argue I think its here for people to get help</p>
<p>i dont plan on being affected by it. Im not worried one bit, my application is strong. </p>
<p>I just see it in exactly the same light as funky monkey, a way to keep racism alive.</p>
<p>White people didn't care about keeping racism alive when it was hurting minorities. Why should minorities care now that it is hurting whites. Even though I don;t think that is what AA is doing.</p>
<p>that is probably one of the most racist comments ive ever seen on CC. And btw SEW, half of the country at the time made slavery illegal before the civil war, to say that whites didnt care about keeping racism alive when it was hurting minorities is inaccurate. You should re-read your US History textbook.</p>
<p>um Doogie wat does slavery have to do with racism???</p>