I hate athletic recruits and affirmative action!

<p>Exactly, supereagle10. A poor White/Asian kid is at just as much of a disadvantage as a poor Hispanic/African-American kid. I think colleges fail to recognize this though. And the same goes the other way around. A wealthy Hispanic/African-American kid should have the same resources (available to do well in high school) as a wealthy White/Asian kid and should thus not be given an advantage in admissions. In fact, colleges should not be allowed to ask for race on applications.</p>

<p>Lol a poor white kid/asian kid and a poor black kid/hispanic kid living in America are 2 toootaally different things. You wouldn’t understand it unless you were black/hispanic anyway. Academic wise, yes it’s the same (no tutoring, bad public school, etc). Experience wise and obstacles overcome
not even close. Like I said, some people just can’t understand unless you’re a poor black or hispanic living in America. </p>

<p>Don’t tell me being poor and white is remotely the same thing. Why shouldn’t they be “allowed” to ask for race? The college is doing you a favor by offering you admission. They can do whatever they want. It’s obvious people just want what is best for them; human nature. No one minded when black kids were going to historically black colleges, no complaining there about not letting in many white/asian kids. It’s when these kids think minorities are starting to take over their “territory” that it becomes a big problem. Some people are very ignorant.</p>

<p>^I definitely agree with KRW. One guy at my school is hispanic but his family is insanely wealthy, and because of AA he got into every school he applied to. I think that deciding by income, not race, will also end up getting similar student diversity as if they admitted by race (just a feeling on this, though). </p>

<p>And mpicz: You may have some points in terms of cultural obstacles at low incomes. But, at similarly high incomes (and thus wealthy neighborhoods) would a black or Mexican family be that different from a white family? It’s not like, just because a kid is black, he’ll end up playing streetball and dealing drugs in the ghetto, even though he lives in an upper class neighborhood. And will the mexican guy I mentioned be forced to mow lawns like many mexicans his age just because he’s mexican even though he lives in an upper class neighborhood.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously they <em>can</em> as of now, but I think this is missing the point. Athletic recruits, I do not hate at all, because if a school is big on sports, it’s just as important to admit top notch sports men and women as it is to admit those with academic potential. </p>

<p>I favor that if someone comes from a hugely disadvantaged background and wrote about it, this someone’s potential should be recognized. That doesn’t mean race should be something you fill out on a checklist. I would say if some, say Hispanic applicant has something very meaningful to say about how his/her background influences his/her identity and choice of activities or something, the applicant can include this information in some space alotted to applicants where they may write anything freely that they wish. This space can be as important to one applicant unconcerned with his/her racial identity as another who is very concerned. I don’t think every URM would choose to write about his/her racial status. </p>

<p>Obviously I am not certain who affirmative action issues are dealt with at any school in particular, not being on the admissions committees, but this attitude of “the school is doing you a favor, it can do whatever it wants” pretty much just affirms what’s going on, and neither supports nor rejects anything in particular.</p>

<p>^But are your parents college/grad school educated? Normally (or so the rationale goes), kids with highly educated parents, even if they didn’t spend money on tutors/test prep/etc still have a big advantage because they were raised in an environment that valued education and put a lot of emphasis on it. Thus, from a young age, these kids were “groomed” so to speak by their parents to get into good colleges when the time came. Since low-income usually (but of course not always) coincides with little to no higher level education, those kids who grew up rather underpriviledged financially also grew up underpriviledged educationally and so would be less likely to pursue higher education later on.</p>

<p>^Yeah, I kind of realized my last point had a lot of flaws (also quality of schools), so I deleted it.</p>

<p>oh just ****, life’s unfair, college admissions are unfair, etc. Of course affirmative action is wrong, were I an admissions officer, I wouldn’t have any of it, but I’m not, so I deal with it. So should you.</p>

<p>“Of course affirmative action is wrong” Lol, if it’s so obvious that it’s wrong why is it still here?</p>

<p>because academia is a liberal institution and affirmative action is a liberal idea. Its the same reason that you can make grapejuice from a grape.</p>

<p>Here’s how I would sum up affirmative action and athletics: it isn’t good when you are applying, but once you are admitted, it is something very good to have. Who wants to go to an all white and asian school? I’d rather be at a school that is representative of U.S. demographics as a whole. And wouldn’t you rather be at a school with competitive sports teams, where your classmates could beat the likes of USC in football, than at a school with no good athletic teams (I know not everyone likes athletics, but I haven’t met one person who hates athletics enough to not choose a school just because it has good sports teams). Because athletic teams will only be good if schools lower admissions standards, as even some of the brightest students get worse grades and aren’t in many clubs because of the huge time commitments that come hand in hand with sports.</p>

<p>I think that if a college wants to have AA, its fine, but State Universities, funded by tax dollars should not be allowed to discriminate.</p>

<p>^^I agree more with that statement. Schools like Stanford reserve the right to do what they please though.</p>

<p>whhyyy is this topic back?? aarrrrggh!</p>

<p>I don’t know, frankly as long as the purpose of looking at a person’s background is to give opportunity to those who have done something very exceptional despite their hampering background, there is some legitimacy. But I strongly feel that just arbitrarily having to put down your race doesn’t seem ideal (though obviously private universities do reserve the right). Rather, as I said, students should have a chance to explain themselves to the admissions officers. </p>

<p>But frankly, there should be a specific reason for admitting a student with less obvious qualification (disregarding financial/other background) <em>to Stanford</em> and rejecting another student, say an Asian with lots of stellar achievements. Admitting someone to Stanford as a reward for their overcoming the odds seems odd, because after all if another student is just better positioned to take advantage of the school, then admitting them seems a better idea – I think most people would agree that admission should be about perceived fit for the school, not a reward. </p>

<p>I think my philosophy is kind of already in place among <em>graduate</em> schools – if you’re rich and you are just more convincingly a future top researcher, then you have a surer chance than someone poor who overcame some things, and are noticeably less convincingly that caliber a researcher. I think the same idea applies to the undergrad level, just that “top caliber researcher” could be “top caliber athlete,” “top caliber this, that” – i.e. broader, depending on what all the given school is good at. </p>

<p>Oh and about athletes – I mean come on people, if you can be admitted to a school as a great future physicist, and that school has a great physics department, that’d be seen as a good thing right? Well, if the school has a great football team, admitting great football players seems logical too. Not everyone is allowed in for the same reason. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I can see where this is coming from, but my personal feeling is that diversity should be compromised if there are just plainly more students in a certain group who seem they’d fit in better at the given school (“fit” meaning that what the school offers and what the student wants to achieve + is talented at are a good match). Don’t reject a stellar engineer for someone who will “bring something else interesting” to campus, because you’re robbing Stanford’s stellar engineering department of a great student, and robbing the student of a great department. I can see people having mixed views on this philosophy, however.</p>

<p>Stanford accepted a B- -ish student from my school who is a freaking dumbass just because he does crew
it’s ridiculous!
The worst part about it is that he has become super smug and cocky because he’s in Stanford while other kids who actually try hard in school have to go to UCs and small LACs</p>

<p>@ Fire480, he has every right to be smug and cocky because he earned his way in through athletics. I dont see you doing that

Are you going to tell me that its not fair because he was born athletically superior? well, a bunch of kids are born with higher IQs. University is not only for an education, it is for the advancement of a person’s future, which is highly possible through athletics.</p>

<p>(btw, i dunno what crew is, im just guessing its a sport) :p</p>

<p>mpicz I must disagree. I AM a low income minority and my best friend is a low income white guy. I have noticed no difference in our experiences or opportunities. I go to a school where theres a good mix of income levels represented. It is the wealthier students, hispanic, black,white, etc that can clearly be seperated from me in terms of the things they can do because of resources and the connections they have, which I do not. Can you please explain why you think its harder being a low income minority vs a low income asian or caucasian? From first hand account I know that isnt true.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OK and frankly, even if it were harder, unless circumstances were clearly such that it was monumentally harder, it’s kind of splitting hairs. I have a good low income white friend who struggled to get a top notch education, and succeeded admirably, but not without plenty of stress. Frankly, his personal circumstances were unique – I think it’s pretty ridiculously narrow-minded to generalize that it’s harder for one low-income racial group – look at the specific individual’s circumstances, please!! </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, being smug and cocky about going to a top notch school is the stupidest thing, because you’ll get there and if you have even half a brain, you’ll come across people (e.g. the faculty) who are 99% of the time more accomplished than you could possibly be. </p>

<p>Earning your way in through athletics is great, but the smug and cockiness is very immature.</p>

<p>yeah no one should be cocky just because they got into a “top school”. they just as easily could have been rejected for applicants quite possibly more qualified. thats stupid.</p>