I Hate Myself For Being An Arm Chair Liberal

Parents Forum
41

<p>SBDad, don't worry. Just be like all the Harvard students who are for AA, provided its not their spot given up. When your son gets in, you'll pass hypocrite home base. You then revert to your support for AA without the occasional twinges of guilt.</p>

<p>I jest of course.</p>

<p>But I have read, and agree somewhat, that the non-beneficiaries often defending AA, specifically white liberal elites, are not threatened, as they do not fall into the 15% margin that AA effects. This thought was couched in the greater hypothesis that such ideology, and zealous attacks on supposed racists/bigots is the impulse to demonstrate moral superiority, that I am more moral than you, and thus superior.</p>

<p>Attacking AA without a reason save of self interest is unwise: it shows you were marginal in the first place, and it does nothing to show that AA is wrong. Worrying about the effects of AA on your child's admission may be misplaced, as again, it only affects the margins. On the other hand, if such favored classes comprise a significant portion of the school (together with athletes and legacies), maybe not. In any case, better to argue in the abstract.</p>

42

<p>Ran out of time to edit, but I'd like to add to my last post. First, it seems that nycdad (post #13) has a similar experience -- it simply is a big mistake to assume that the URMs are the only ones who are getting in with SATs in the lower end of the score range. </p>

<p>Re Northstarmom's post 15: "There are plenty of nonURMs admitted with such stats. These include students who are legacies, large donors' offspring, reside in underrepresented states, are very disadvantaged, have worldclass athletic or other abilities." I'd like to note that my daughter is not an athlete; we are not legacies; we are on the lower end of middle class, but definitely not disadvantaged - both parents have advanced degrees. My daughter has never won an award and holds no significant leadership positions at her high school. But she had a very interesting story to tell on her application, at least to the colleges willing to listen. </p>

<p>These kids don't have to be superstars. They just need to have led a life less ordinary, and from there its a matter of whether whatever makes them "special" fits what the college is looking for -- you get to that point with a little bit of research and a whole lot of luck.</p>

43

<p>As much as some people would like to deny, stats are from from everything. I would even go so far to say they are simply the primary benchmark to see if you're competent. It's the whole person that is much more interesting. Working with a bunch of 1600, 4.0s who haven't done a thing else with their lives is pretty boring, let me tell you. It takes ALL kinds of people to make a vibrant community.</p>

<p>I have a drama friend who made a corset of out leaves for a class project. It was freaking awesome and original. Her SATs and gpa sucked because guess what? She's talented in something OTHER than filling in little bubbles for three hours at a time. </p>

<p>Honestly people, we really need to get past this stat driven culture, it's just silly</p>

<p>URMs didn't become URMs just 'cause, systematic social persecution is more like it. And the greatest benefitters of AA are WOMEN, but as I've said fifteen million jillion times before, no one has the guts to put the blame of their rejection on blonde Mary down the street. It's underachieving Tyrone or illegal Maria. I find it amusing that these groups have been held back for hundreds of years and when the majority gets the tiniest of tastes it condemns it self-righteously. Suck it up, it may do you some good.</p>

44

<p>"reside in underrepresented states" A nice symbol of college admissions - that is, irrational and inscrutable due to its antisemitic past. Unfortunately, the practices enacted then remain with us, and have spread to un-antisemitic colleges, like the University of Chicago.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Northstar, it matters not what you have seen but what is true in general.</p>

45

<p>Sigh....Groan....................................!</p>

<p>The Anti-AA threads always get cranked up in earnest at about this point in the admissions cycle, and the arguments are always circular and wearisome, especially for those of us whose URM students were admitted into top schools with solid scores and GPAs (stats which, while not at the very top, were well within the school's stated criterion for qualified applicants).</p>

<p>Having said that, I would really very much appreciate it if SBdad and Jlauer95, etc., would stop and consider a few points:</p>

<p>AA detractors almost invariably assume that if the admittee is a URM, he/she was admitted with the lowest stats in the applicant pool, and that his admission precluded that of a "more qualified" white or Asian applicant. But is this necessarily true? It's interesting to note that no one has commented on nycdad's post in which he relates that his son was admitted to an Ivy with the lowest stats among those from his school who were admitted to said Ivy. People automatically assumed that this boy's stats must have been those of a URM. Nycdad said: "When I replied that, in fact, that kid was my S and that all the URMs who had been accepted had better grades and test scores, he was shocked." </p>

<p>Well, I suppose this response should come as a surprise to no one. The righteous indignation required of an anti-AA rant almost always requires an all-or-nothing, either/or mindset: "If they hadn't admitted that black kid with the lower stats, my more deserving S/D probably would have gotten in". In order to entertain the significant lack of real logic that this particular paradigm entails, one must completely ignore the fact that more white students with lower stats were probably admitted over the indignant ranter's son than were URMs with lower stats. But somehow, this fact is disregarded time after time. Instead, people often just assume that a white student with lower stats who was admitted over one with higher stats, was granted admission for legitimate and compelling reasons: "His recs must have been phenomenal". "He must have written some amazing essays". "She had fought her way back from some devastating personal tragedy and showed tremendous character and courage". "The school orchestra really needed him to fill an oboe spot". "He's a talented independent film maker, you know" "His dad's the Founder and CEO of Acme Industries and has pledged to build a new wing onto the science building".---any numer of mitigating factors. </p>

<p>Stats are only the be-all and end-all if they belong to a minority student who was admitted with lower stats than those of than ANY other applicant who happened to have been white. After all, WHAT ELSE could the URM possibly have to offer other than this skin color? The fact that minority students are often so categorized, homogenized, and marginalized as to foster this assumption shows that there IS a racist component in the arguments of some AA detractors. And this same assumption makes it impossible for a minority applicant to be "qualified" as long as there is ANY white applicant whose stats are higher. But you know, the assumption by some that a minority student is unworthy of his place at the top schools didn't start with AA. It has, in fact, ALWAYS enjoyed the status of foregone conclusion throughout the history of America. It was true when George Wallace stood on the steps of Ole' Miss, and it's still true today when someone immediately assumes that the only reason why their white son or daughter was denied admission to their dream school, is because some unworthy URM "took their place".</p>

46

<p>A few comments:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Poetheart - I think that nycdad's post is heartwarming and I am genuinely pleased not only that his child was admitted, but that his child deserved to be admitted and was admitted. That being said, the story is purely anecdotal. There seems to be a general denial of the facts that, statistically, URM's are admitted to selective schools with lower gpa's and standardized test scores that non-URM's. If you don't accept that as a premise, then your entire argument is disingenuous at best. All these discussions about athletes, artists, legacies, etc are smoke screens. I was trying to have a legitimate discussion about the merits of admitting URM's on a preferential basis, and here's what I can't seem to get across...</p></li>
<li><p>I am supportive of AA. If you would read the entire thread, you would see that I have said that a number of times. My original point was that, while I am a supporter of AA, it really hits home and makes me do a gut check on my values when I see the realities of this position. I believe that there is value to the school, and to society, for advocating for these policies. And...</p></li>
<li><p>This is a theoretical discussion for me. As I have said twice previously, my son is a junior, so I am not coming to this from a standpoint of dissapointment or bitterness. Maybe I am alone in questioning self-interest versus societal values, but somehow I doubt it. And...</p></li>
<li><p>Talk about ranting, to paint me with the "George Wallce" brush when you obviously haven't even taken the time to read the entire thread is pure hysterics.</p></li>
</ol>

47

<p>SBDad -- keep in mind that you have TWO instances of anecdotal evidence from the thread -- I'm the white professional with the daughter with the SAT's well below median who got into Barnard. She also was accepted at two other reach colleges where her scores were subpar. </p>

<p>I saw a white kid from Michigan in the U. of Chicago thread who has just been accepted with a 27 ACT, 2 years in a junior varsity sport, not much else to speak of, though he does have good grades. Probably wrote a really great essay -- Chicago does like good essays. </p>

<p>I am glad to know that you don't have a kid who has just been rejected from his dream school because it lets me be blunt: kids get accepted to colleges based on the full package they offer. The ones who get in are simply the ones that the ad coms choose because they like them better than the ones they reject. No one on this board gets to see the essays or recs or know what happened at interviews -- the numbers we see are only a small part of the story. </p>

<p>Being a URM is just one factor that weighs in a kids favor. The kids who get in are kids who have something extra to offer, who do a good job of presenting themselves, and do a good job of targeting their applications to colleges where there is a good mutual fit. By mutual fit I mean that the college is looking for "fit" to -- they are looking for a varied array of students to keep their community and their academic departments healthy. </p>

<p>One definition of "prejudice" might be, someone who only sees what they want to see. If you hear about a white kid, nonathlete, with subpar scores who gets in -- you call it "anecdotal" -- if it's a URM, you call it "evidence". </p>

<p>If you think that this all a contest of 'stats' -- who has the highest test scores, who has the best GPA, who has the most AP's.... then if your kid gets rejected from his top choice schools it may very well be that he (or you) didn't understand what was needed to get in. I'll bet there are many high stat applicants who get rejected from top schools because they simply assumed that their impressive academic credentials were all that were needed, and submitted prosaic essays, along with formulaic letters of recommendation -- and to the ad com, reading the application package was as stimulating as reading the list of ingredients on the side of a cereal box. </p>

<p>And there are probably some URM's along the way who get in with lower-than-typical test scores who poured their hearts out in their application... and they get in because the ad com was moved by the story they told, or by specific accomplishments or achievements... but people like you can't look past the test score.</p>

48

<p>The only evidence I ever refer to is statistical evidence.</p>

<p>When are you going to quit obfuscating the point and deal with the statistical data? I would not even be having this discussion unless it was a statistical fact that URM's are admitted with lower gpa's and test scores that non-URM's. </p>

<p>I accept the fact that many URM's bring other talents to the table, but I don't see how those talents would be greater in URM's than non-URM's.</p>

<p>Again, I am not against admission preferences for URM's, I just think we should deal with facts. But thanks, again,for insinuating my supposed prejudice. If you really want to support AA, I think it is better done with facts than with barbs.</p>

<p>And by the way, what is the class of people your refer to as "people like you"? Also, if one definition of prejudice is only seeing things they want to see, then that certainly would include you since you absolutely refuse to acknowledge factual data.</p>

49

<p><<<< One definition of "prejudice" might be, someone who only sees what they want to see. >>></p>

<p>Yes.... and why do people automatically "see" diversity when they see a URM??? </p>

<p>I live in an affluent upper middle class/lower upper class neighborhood (all homes over 4000 square feet - all brick -- gorgeous) and 30% of my neighbors are black. Their kids go to private schools (with my kids) and they live a very comfortable (the so called "white") life. The parents drive MB, Lexus, BMW's, etc. My sister in law is a URM (hispanic) and she, too, lived the "white life" (which she readily admits). You can't tell me that when these kids arrive on a campus that they add much "diversity". </p>

<p>I would say that a poor URM or a poor white offers diversity.</p>

<p>I suggest colleges change the need for URM to URIL (under represented income level). That will insure "diversity".</p>

50

<p>SBdad--this is what I don't understand about your posts in this thread: YOu keep saying you are a supporter of AA, but you hesitate if it affects your kid (theoretically.) In other words, you are saying I support when others are affected, but maybe not when my family is. Isn't that a pretty untenable position? It's to me, so weak, it makes one wonder about basic principles.</p>

<p>Aren't most of the problems of the country caused by people who suspend their principles when it's in their best interest to do so? You seem like a person who cares about principle, so how can you justify the idea that it changes when the principle affects you?</p>

<p>I'd rather, frankly, hear you say you are against AA; it would be more consistent, and maybe more honest.</p>

51

<p>garland writes about SBDAD: ""In other words, you are saying I support when others are affected, but maybe not when my family is. Isn't that a pretty untenable position? """</p>

<p>Garland, it is for that reason, SBDad began this thread (note the thread's title). SBDad is recognizing the inconsistency of his usual liberal leanings in regards to this very subject. SBDad is uncomfortable with realizing that something that he has always held "dear" is now "not so dear" if his child might be hurt by it. His feelings are understandable.</p>

52

<p>I understand what you are saying Garland, but I think if you read my posts you will see that I am not attacking AA, just stating it's realities.</p>

<p>I expressed an honest emotion about the personal effects of AA, but I am not backing down from supporting it.</p>

<p>Have you seen me say anywhere that I think my child should get be admitted ahead of a URM with lessor stats? No. But I am saying that it is a reality that URM's at prestigious schools get admitted with lessor stats that non-URM's, and people seem to go ballistic when I even state the obvious. </p>

<p>And frankly, I agree with jlauer about placing more emphasis on economic disparity than racial disparity.</p>

53

<p>Yeah, I know that's how he began the thread. But I guess I'd like him to see that it's a pretty untenable position, and, if he really does support AA, he maybe can see his way to reconciling his feelings.</p>

<p>Look, many of what you denigrate as the "usual liberal leanings" include positions which might not be to an individual's advantages, but are, overall, more fair. Being in favor of them except when they personally affect you is like putting up a sign saying "See, we liberals are a bunch of hypocrites--you conservatives are right." That's why it bothers me. It's an ethically challenged position (which SBdad acknowledges) and it fans flames which really already have enough fuel in these times.</p>

<p>I think the fact that SBdad "hates himself" for this position indicates he knows it's not such a good place to be; so I would like to urge him to go beyond it-he'll feel much better! :)</p>

<p>Edit: posted before I saw SB's post, the above was in answer to Jlauer.</p>

<p>SB--still don't know why you are in favor of AA, if it's supposed inequities bother you this much.</p>

54

<p>SBdad:</p>

<p>I do appreciate that you are willing to acknowledge the tension many of us feel when our principles go against our interests or those of our children. </p>

<p>The issue I have is that while there is plenty of evidence that collectively, URMs are admitted with lower stats than non-URMs, these admission data also include athletic recruits who, whether white or non-white, are also admitted with lower stats (see the discussion on the Duke Lacrosse scandal, for example). If we took out athletic recruits, how much lower would the stats of URMs be?
Interestingly, on the Harvard chatboard, there is a thread by some URMs lamenting the fact that their status did not gain them admission into Harvard. They argued that at best, a URM status gave an edge; it wasn't a hook. Their stats seemed to me very impressive.
Adcoms admit individuals and try to shape a community; they do not admit students as a group. Somebody has suggested that under-represented geographical areas could be used as code for admitting Caucasians. But students from such areas also bring something valuable to the table and I have no more trouble accepting that they should have an edge than I do accepting that URMs should also have an edge.
College admissions is not the only area where our principles and our interests don't match neatly. I hope we can talk about these tensions with courtesy and respect.</p>

55

<p>I am a liberal. </p>

<p>My son took a direct hit when lower URM got admitted from his podunk school and he also took a hit when some local scholarships were awarded to academically below par URM students from his school.</p>

<p>And when with you are with the same kids with four years, you know that they don't bring anything additional to the table except the fact that they are URM</p>

<p>I have stopped supporting the social experiment also known as AA.</p>

56

<p>Garland,</p>

<p>The work "hate" is hyberbole and maybe chosen naively given the tone of this thread. I think "conflicted" would be more accurate, I don't see an issue in trying to reconcile self-interest with long held values and beliefs - don't we all do it every day?</p>

57

<p>"I don't see an issue in trying to reconcile self-interest with long held values and beliefs - don't we all do it every day?"</p>

<p>I think it's something I have to do, absolutely. If I find myself putting self-interest above values and beliefs, I know it's time to slap myself around (figuratively) and figure out where I went wrong. Which is exhausting, but seems the only way to be a peson I can live with.</p>

58

<p>Garland writes: many of what you denigrate as the "usual liberal leanings" </p>

<p>When I wrote the words "usual liberal leanings" I didn't mean to denigrate SBDad's beliefs at all. it was the only way I could think to describe his "usual" feelings.</p>

59

<p>I am a conservative.</p>

<p>My son also took a direct hit in the admissions process, when a lower scoring athlete was admitted from his predominantly white private high school. </p>

<p>However, I have come to see that athletes bring qualities to a college that my brainiac son doesn't. I'd like to repeat my support for income sensitive AA, which would still probably benefit URM's. As reasonabledad said in an earlier post, AA just makes up for the fact that K-12 education for so many low-income (and probably URM) kids is pathetic.</p>

60

<p>jlauer has pointed out the basic problem in post 49 many who have issues with AA feel conflicted about. Do colleges have a percent of URMs they are looking to admit; let's say 12% for argument. Therefore, someone like SBDad's child really wouldn't haven't been impacted by whether or not a URM with lower stats was admitted, because they're part of the 12% already alloted. However, are affluent URMs taking the slots away from underpriviledged students who don't have the advantages that goes along with wealth? To me, that's the larger issue that needs to be addressed.</p>