I hate affirmative action

<p>Coronaryay, the glaring problem with people like you is that despite the fact that millions of dollars are spent each year on government programs designed to help URMs and our current "whitey" government is willing top keep a henious program like AA around just to appease URMs and far left liberals like yourself, you continue to use the past as a justification to keep AA around. If AA was truly the godsend that you think it is, you wouldn't be so caught up in the past since AA would be doing it's job in the present (which it obviously isn't). </p>

<p>Let's examine this blatant contradiction in your last post:</p>

<p>"Affirmative Action is not about "avenging slavery" or any of the paranoid notions that white people come up with."</p>

<p>Oh so you're not one of those AA supporters who uses America circa 1800 to support his/her opinion. This seems too good to be true. </p>

<p>That's because it is:</p>

<p>"The first group? Whoops, brought here against their will as property. Now, 200 years of that, followed by 100 more years of forced segregation couldn't possibly have affected the way Black Americans live today, could it?"</p>

<p>Gee. Based on this rant, it certainly sounds like you think there should be some sort of reparation or vengeance for slavery and segregation.</p>

<p>Yeah, that would be a contradiction. If it, uh, actually was. </p>

<p>There's a difference between saying: "Here, you get into college because I am sorry for my ancestors enslaving you" and "Here, you get into college because you are currently, at present, at a disadvantage in this society because of factors beyond your control. Those factors include the fact that your ancestors were enslaved, and then segregated." It's subtle, which is why I wouldn't expect you to understand it, since your conception of race-relations in America boils down to "black people get things that I want and that is unfair."</p>

<p>And I always love it when people accuse me of "living in the past." It's the mark of someone completely ignorant, because all of our sociologists and scholars and academics do the same thing. Only it's not "living in the past." It's recognizing that, gosh, effects have causes! And, goodness me, those causes are in the past! Therefore, by looking at the past, we can figure out why things are happening in the present! Duh.</p>

<p>To sum up: Affirmative Action exists because of the past. Because there is a huge amount of historical momentum keeping the concept of "black people do not succeed" in motion. Because racism is still ramapant in our society, even if it's not the cross-burning lynch mob kind (with exceptions). Because the roots of black culture extend back to the first slaves brought to America.</p>

<p>iin77: "If I didn't have to pseudo-plagiarize a "Midsummer Night's Dream" critique right now, I would refute all your arguments. But calling you a slavist works in the mean time."</p>

<p>Big words, mama.</p>

<p>You said it, Coronary. Actions beyond your control. Why should you get into college because of an uncontrollable characteristic that is race?</p>

<p>snoopyiscool: "You said it, Coronary. Actions beyond your control. Why should you get into college because of an uncontrollable characteristic that is race?"</p>

<p>Because it is not your fault that you live in a society predisposed towards making members of your race fail, so colleges should rectify that predisposition?</p>

<p>"Only it's not "living in the past." It's recognizing that, gosh, effects have causes!"</p>

<p>I guess you fail to realize that AA is the CAUSE of the supressed Asian enrollement at colleges. Look at the % of Asians at the UCs and compare it to the % of them anywhere else. It isn't even close. You know why? AA isn't used in the UC system. </p>

<p>"Because racism is still ramapant in our society, even if it's not the cross-burning lynch mob kind (with exceptions)."</p>

<p>Apparently it is since you think the white man is the root of all evil when it comes to URMs. So every time a black person does poorly in school, they can just blame "whitey" for something that happened years ago. Has it ever once occured to you that there are lazy, unmotivated blacks, just as there are lazy, unmotivated Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Indians, etc?</p>

<p>Hepstar most of the Asians in this country to my knowledge live in California or at least it has a high number of them. Seeing how with their culture many of them go to institutions of higher learning it's only natural that the UCs would have a high number of Asians. I highly doubt that taking out AA in Michigan or Virginia would make a huge difference in the applicant pool. Whereas many of the Latinos/Hispanics in California come from a different background culturally.......success is guaged differently amongst different groups of people.</p>

<p>Since I'm assuming you didn't see the % of Asians at the UCs, I'll provide them for you. Both of the following schools are very good state schools. One is a SUNY, which uses AA. The other is a UC which doesn't.</p>

<p>UC Irvine - 52%
SUNY Stony Brook - 29%</p>

<p>When I first used this comparison in another thread, pro-AA people said that UC Irvine is probably a better school, so more Asians apply to them (talk about stereotyping).</p>

<p>Look at the schools SAT score ranges. They're very similar:</p>

<p>Stony Brook: 1080 - 1280
UC Irvine: 1110 - 1310</p>

<p>Then, the pro-AA people said that NY has a lower % of Asians than Cal. This is actually true, but it not important when considering that Stony Brook gets much more Asian applicants than the other SUNYs. This can be easily proven by comparing the % of them at some other SUNY schools:</p>

<p>Binghamton: 16%
Geneseo: 8%
Albany: 6%
Purchase: 5%
Buffalo: 10%
Oneonta: 2%</p>

<p>These numbers prove that SUNY Stony Brook gets a great deal more Asians applicants than the other SUNYs. The 29% number for Stony Brook is a result of the high amount of Asian applicants. </p>

<p>All these numbers are right from the college board website.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, the Asians had nothing to do with slavery and were oppressed themselves. Yet, they take a beating in admissions due to the lunacy of AA. I am not Asian myself, but I don't think it's right that they are held to a higher standard than other minorities.</p>

<p>Some interesting research I dug up about affirmative action if you are interested. </p>

<p>?I think we're at a state school, and we sort of owe it to the state of California to reflect its diversity.? ? Berkeley student during scandal that only one African-American was admitted one year </p>

<p>"This is still segregation. This is discrimination against whites and females. This is fighting desegregation with segregation." ? Aimee Bogrow, who sued U of Georgia for rejecting her because she was white and won</p>

<p>PROS:</p>

<ol>
<li> Currently Asians and Caucasians are discriminated in the college process.
a. A study released in October by the Center for Equal Opportunity, an advocacy group opposing race-conscious admissions, showed that in 2005 Asian-Americans were admitted to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at a much lower rate (54 percent) than black applicants (71 percent) and Hispanic applicants (79 percent) ? despite median SAT scores that were 140 points higher than Hispanics and 240 points higher than blacks.
b. According to a January 9, 2001 article from CNN, there are many cases where minorities are favored over Caucasians, leaving many qualified candidates out of colleges. One such victim was Aimee Bogrow, who sued the University of Georgia and won. Others are not so lucky. According to the article, as much as 10% of those admitted are chosen for criteria other than grades and academic merit; there are quotas for minority students, which leave out Caucasians. </li>
<li> Financial need is no longer directly correlated to minority status, and therefore race should not be the issue.
a. While at one point being black or Hispanic meant having a lower income, this is quickly changing. According to data from the US Census Bureau, there are many more factors to take into consideration such as location and whether parents are immigrants. For example, the average income in the South is several thousands of dollars less than the average income for the rest of the country, and first-generation American families generally make less than established families, regardless of race. Therefore, it is unfair to associate race as sole obstacle towards attaining a higher degree.
b. Furthermore, according to a 2004 Reuters Report, the poverty rate rose for only one group -- non-Hispanic whites -- which had an 8.6 percent poverty rate for 2004 compared with 8.2 percent in 2003. The poverty rate declined for Asians and remained unchanged for blacks and Hispanics. Yet in the eyes of an admissions officer, these people are white, regardless of ability to afford college. </li>
<li> Quotas prevent many capable students from achieving their full potential at top institutions.
a.<br>
b. Furthermore, qualified minority students would still attend college even without affirmative action. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Associates David Card and Alan Krueger report that the college application decisions of highly qualified minority students are "not very sensitive to changes in the racial and ethnic composition of the student bodies at selective public colleges and universities" and that fears "that ending affirmative action would cause a diversion of highly qualified minority students away from the elite colleges and universities appear to be unfounded."
c. Many critics will argue that without affirmative action, less minorities will attend top colleges. This is simply not true, representatives. According to the College Board, with top colleges? already implemented need-blind policy and efforts to make college affordable for lower-income students, many of the truly disadvantaged applicants can still achieve their dream of attending college. This need-blind policy has nothing to do with affirmative action. </li>
</ol>

<p>CONS:</p>

<p>?It?s not easy being green.? ?Kermit the Frog</p>

<ol>
<li> Quality students still attend top colleges regardless of affirmative action.
a. According to 2006 data from the US Department of Education, double standards are inconsistent with the principles and spirit of affirmative action. One standard is applied to all candidates. This myth, and this legislation, implies that women and minorities are inherently less qualified than white males, resulting in a need for affirmative action. However, according to academic data from 2006 US News Best Colleges, the minority students accepted through affirmative action hold the same test scores and academic credentials as their qualified white colleagues.
b. Furthermore, according to a 2003 article from Anders Hove of MIT, affirmative action is not about quotas or double standards. Affirmative action only comes into play during the recruitment process. MIT aggressively recruits women and minorities. Because of this recruitment, many qualified women apply to MIT, whereas they often do not apply to other universities that ignore recruiting. The actual admissions decisions have nothing to do with ethnic background because all the applicants considered are extremely qualified. </li>
<li> Disadvantaged minorities need a ?boost.?
a. According to 2003 data from the US Census Bureau, black households have a median income of about 30,000 dollars, Native American 32,000 dollars, and Hispanic 32,000 dollars, while white households have a median income of about 48,000 dollars. This asserts the idea that minorities for the most part are less privileged than the white, and thus need a ?boost? to attain higher education.<br>
b. Furthermore, according to a 2003 study from David Boaz of the Cato institute, Today's American urban schools are increasingly overloaded and under funded, lacking in adequate learning materials and qualified teachers. Minorities also make up the majority of the students at urban schools. Therefore, there is a correlation between lack of resources and minority status, and affirmative actions seeks to level the playing field and allows kids who never thought college was even an option now attend elite colleges. </li>
<li> Affirmative action allows for a more diverse college experience.
a. An August 28, 2004 Washington Post article states that among the freshman class of 6,500 at University of Texas, there are only 150 African American students, half last year's number. And the law school, for years one of the nation's major educators of minority lawyers, is welcoming only four African Americans and 26 Hispanics to its first-year class.
b. University officials agree that the scarcity of minority students ? both African American and Hispanic ? is direct fallout of new prohibitions on racial preferences that could affect the university's makeup ? and its public image ? for years to come.
c. A diverse environment is crucial today, fostering understanding over ethnic lines. A university without diversity misses out of a valuable life experience for its students.</li>
</ol>

<p>What you described in the first post was made illegal. In May 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lower court decision outlawing race basedBenjaminBanneker scholarshipsat the University of Maryland. The ruling effectively bans all racebased scholarships at public universities.</p>

<p>private uninversities are private institutions...so its up to them to decide what is best for their school. The people that run the universities are not stupid and so i trust their decisions when it comes to admissions.</p>

<p>I think the problem with people in this thread that oppose AA is that they've never heard the word "no" before. Allow to me explain; The OP in this thread is upset that he was not asked to attend an interview for a scholarship. Instead of "diversifying" his applications (meaning applying to several different colleges and scholarship programs)--like any smart college applicant would have the common sense to do--he blames the classic spoiled brat applicant's whipping boy of affirmative action. Why does he blame AA? I have no idea. But usually people like this are so arrogant that the believe that they are the best/smartest/greatest things to have ever graced the view of the application review board and to not accept/approve/hire them is a crime against humanity. In cases like these, these people cannot fathom that someone else--especially someone who may be a "minority"--may actually be better suited for a position at some institution, job, or in the OP's case a scholarship. So instead of doing things the mature, adult way which is to move on and find other colleges/scholarship programs/jobs to apply for, people like the OP do things the spoiled-five-year-old-child way which is to whine, cry, complain and play the blame game as if somehow the permanent decision of a review board would be changed through these means. </p>

<p>To the O.P.:
Grow up. Your rejection from this program is the first of many signs that the world will not cater to your every whim. Apply for other scholarships instead of whining over the fact that someone was a better candidate for a scholarship than you. If you act like this now while you're still in high school, I'd hate to see how you act once you start classes at college and are suddenly hit with the realities of the college world (i.e. No one will care about one thing you did in high school; Professors will not inquire about your SAT scores, nor will you automatically know the scores of your classmates; The classes you'll take first semester will hinge on scores from placement exams you took at the college during orientation, not test scores from high school; etc.).</p>

<p>Honestly, why is everyone agruing about this topic? It's obvious the OP doesn't like AA. Well, it isn't going to change for him, or anyone else, so just get use to it. LIFE ISN'T FAIR, DONT CRY OVER IT. damn</p>

<p>^And that kind of attitude proves why no one cares for reform in this age....</p>

<p>"LIFE ISN'T FAIR, DONT CRY OVER IT. damn"</p>

<p>Life is definitely unfair. We could help to make it a bit fairer by doing away with AA.</p>

<p>"I think the problem with people in this thread that oppose AA is that they've never heard the word "no" before."</p>

<p>It's not that we haven't heard the word "no" before. It's the fact that URMs with less impressive credentials hear the word "yes" instead of us just because they are URMs that bothers us.</p>

<p>"In cases like these, these people cannot fathom that someone else--especially someone who may be a "minority"--may actually be better suited for a position at some institution, job, or in the OP's case a scholarship."</p>

<p>Or perhaps it is the pro-AA people who cannot fathom that minorities are given jobs and seats at colleges that could have gone to more qualified whites and Asians if AA didn't exist. The NBA is over 80% black and less than 20% white and it's no big deal, but when it's the other way around in colleges, something "must" be done. </p>

<p>I don't think the OP is denying that there are URMs more qualified than himself. However, he is talking about one URM in particular who appears to be less deserving of a scholarship, but is getting considered for it just because he/she is a minority. This is just wrong. The OP has an SAT score that is 250 points higher than the URM and a higher GPA. I know you'll say something about SATs not meaning everything and that ECs matter too. Well if the URM had any notable ECs to make up for the lower stats, I am sure the OP wouldn't be complaining so much.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Allow to me explain; The OP in this thread is upset that he was not asked to attend an interview for a scholarship.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I understand this statement perfectly -- because it's true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Instead of "diversifying" his applications (meaning applying to several different colleges and scholarship programs)--like any smart college applicant would have the common sense to do--he blames the classic spoiled brat applicant's whipping boy of affirmative action.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yeah, because you know about the OP's life and all so much, that you totally have the right to judge his actions in relation to all his other actions. How, may I ask, do you know he didn't apply to anything else? He is upset, as far as I know, because he was rejected for a full-ride that someone (in his opinion) less qualified received.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why does he blame AA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know -- because someone he believes to be less qualified got the scholarship he was rejected for?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have no idea.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that's silly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But usually people like this are so arrogant that the believe that they are the best/smartest/greatest things to have ever graced the view of the application review board and to not accept/approve/hire them is a crime against humanity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course it's a crime when the most deserving doesn't get what he deserves.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In cases like these, these people cannot fathom that someone else--especially someone who may be a "minority"--may actually be better suited for a position at some institution, job, or in the OP's case a scholarship.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But his grades and etc. were better...I mean, I don't know for sure, but as far as I know, colleges neither plant spy-cams nor gets information on an applicant from the government -- not for the application process anyway. What else do you significantly get judged on?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So instead of doing things the mature, adult way which is to move on and find other colleges/scholarship programs/jobs to apply for, people like the OP do things the spoiled-five-year-old-child way which is to whine, cry, complain and play the blame game as if somehow the permanent decision of a review board would be changed through these means.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yeah. Totally. Any want to suggest a discussion on Affirmative Action is totally impossible and all. What do you expect on a message board? Love and kisses galore? If we see a controversial topic, people are going to argue. The opinions given are interesting to read and debate. Who said anything about changing AA through a message board?</p>

<p>Geez. I'd suggest making less assumptions -- it makes you look less vindictive.</p>

<p>Just wanted to point out some things:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I mean honestly, how many people in Ivy schools are from low income families?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>According to what the financial aid office says, 51% of the students here receive some kind of financial aid and because it's need-based...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Black society and white society's goals are different.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Generally speaking, every person's goal (regardless of race) is to succeed and to better their current position. At least, that's what I thought...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Black society wants to be athletic, have lots of sex, and start a family. </p>

<p>White society wants to be successful in life (in an "academic" profession)... then be athletic, have sex, and start a family.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Firstly, I think the reason that people (or this person) are (is) claiming that African-Americans want to be athletic (you mean play pro-basketball or pro-football) is because these two sports are more publicized than others in America. Thus, because you see numerous African-Americans playing these two sports, you claim African-Americans want to be "athletic." </p>

<p>Secondly, what about all the other sports that don't get TV time (Lacrosse, crew, water polo, etc)? I believe those sports are dominated by Caucasians. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's why most professional athletes are black and most politicians, businessmen, et cetera are white.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know the exact number of people on every national sports team (and I doubt you do).</p>

<p>
[quote]
You might say this is racist, but black people will agree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact that there have been three black senators is irrelevant, because black people don't want to be senators anyway. And who knows, maybe voters chose the more qualified candidate, instead of the darker one?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't believe that * every * voter is equipped with a list of every candidates so-called qualifications, so they aren't picking the candidates who are "more qualified", they are picking the candidate who are more appealing to them (in other words who they like best in terms of their stance on certain issues, etc.).</p>

<p>As a korean dude,which makes me a minority...I think..., I agree that AA (Affirmative Action not African American) is dumb. It's like saying "Hey you suck so we're gonna help you." We dont need your ****ing help.</p>

<p>a77 is angry that he was not invited to the Banneker/Key scholarship interviews. I doubt that race played a role for a few reasons. 1. from my school, tons of Asians got the interview and I don't know a single URM who did. 2. He goes to Blair, so either there was a URM in the prestigious magnet program or one from the crappy ghetto high school (strong URMs from either circumstance are going to get some sort of scholarship offer). 3. a77 doens't know the whole story, so we can't be sure that he is truly stronger in every way over the URM</p>

<p>
[quote]
he majority of the scholarships already go to athletes who are mostly Black and Hispanic anyway.

[/quote]
Let's go over UMD"s big sports. Lax: almost all white. Football: half white half black more or less. Soccer: White/Hispanic maybe? Basketball: mostly black, but it's less than 20 kids. Women's basketball: black again, but still not too many people. There you go, maybe half the athletes (at the least) who are on scholarships are white. </p>

<p>a77, get over it. There are a bunch of scholarship opportunities still and you can apply for others during your freshman year if you get good grades. If your stats are high enough, you could have full tuition and save money by commuting.</p>

<p>Affirmative Action was never meant to guarantee spots to lower-achieving URMs over higher achieving whites or asians. Instead it was meant to tip the balance between two comparable applicants in order to improve diversity.</p>

<p>Although many people seem to believe that affirmative action is the only way undeserving individuals get into college, there are actually several: legacies, the uber-rich (development cases), celebrities and their children, children of faculty, and athletes.</p>

<p>The average scores of recruited athletes and legacies are significantly lower than those of 'regular' admits.</p>

<p>Also: Many people in this thread seem to think that GPAs and SATs are the be all and end all of college admissions. They're not. More and more admissions at top universities are holistic, meaning that they take into account scores, personal qualities, essays, and extracurriculars. They want interesting kids, different kids. (GPAs also vary region to region school to school. A 4.0 at a mediocre high school is not the same as a 4.0 in a competitive high school)</p>

<p>When UC-Berkeley stopped using AA, it's Asian population soared. 40% of the undergraduate students at Berkeley are asian. Is this number inflated because of the high number of asians in CA, yes. But latinos, an equally high percentage of the state population, are incredibly underrepresented.</p>

<p>Wouldn't you rather learn in an enviornment with more than one type of person? Doesn't learning require that you experience different opinions and points of view in order to better form your own beliefs?</p>

<p>And, in closing, if one were to objectively analyze every suit and complaint about AA, one would inevitably conclude that it all comes down to the same thing: I didn't get in. I'm upset. And it's not my fault.</p>