<p>Lightzout, you exemplify what AA today tries to procure. The problem is, you are one of the very few fortunate students that are informed enough to utilize it; as am I.</p>
<p>Oh, exactly what Lightzout said. My EFC is 00000 and I think AA should be for the poor.</p>
<p>I think a lot of you are missing the point. AA doesn’t exist because colleges want to help out poor little mexican kids or something. It exists because it makes the college looks better and creates a more diverse class profile which according to colleges, enriches the experience for students at the university. Harvard doesn’t want to be filled with rich white kids from New England who went to the same 30 prep schools. Same with gender based AA - lots of tech schools don’t want to end up with 80% men in their class. </p>
<p>As for AA scholarships, I benefit from one and I’m not poor or an ethnic minority…well the scholarship was designed specifically for women pursuing fields we’re underrepresented in. It’s not like it helps “underqualified” women sneak in or something, because my college doesn’t admit by major, and the scholarship is only given to candidates with above avg stats obviously. I would guess the same for ethnic diversity scholarships or whatever. It’s not like by giving out AA scholarships colleges are making it easier for Black/Hispanic kids to get in or something.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is a lot like religion ---- its just a bunch of buzzwords typically used to justify politically incorrect actions.</p>
<p>Like Alix said, universities like to have “diverse” (by which I mean racially diverse and racially diverse alone) classes because it makes them look more cosmopolitan - however their “front” is “affirmative action” and surrounding reasons.</p>
<p>I, too, for instance, can use the reasoning of “affirmative action” to justify potentially unsavory behaviors. For instance, let’s hypothetically say I’m a misogynist. Lo and behold, the top candidate applying for my business is a woman. Instead, I’ll simply hire a black man in the name of diversity.</p>
<p>Past injustices are just that - in the past. The reason there are ethnic/ racial disparities in achievement in schools and test scores are because there are different stereotypes and cultural priorities amongst certain groups - in that education or being the top egg in school are not as high priorities or as valued.</p>
<p>If you feel that your membership in [insert any minority ethnic/racial/religious/misc. group] has unfairly burdened you and your chances to succeed in life - by all means, blame the [historical injustices] done to [your people] - that is truly affecting your test scores.</p>
<p>Well said, Peter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Careful where you say that. A few people here (not a lot, but a couple) seem to think that being Hispanic is like getting a free ride to Harvard and your own private jet to take you to each class or something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Can it be that it was all so simple, then?</p>
<p>Well, you have to take into account things like poverty, but yeah it can be that simple. At least for the suburban middle-class.</p>
<p>You guys make some good points. I do agree with the fact that the economic factor should be taken into consideration when defining AA. However, many URMs are low income (i.e. I’m one of them). </p>
<p>I think AA is used extensively with URMs because of stereotypes. For instance, one would think that an African American teen is out there causing mayhem, disturbing the peace, going nowhere in his life; but when you find a successful African American student who is successful and has done a lot to better society you get “Wow! I need to have him/her in my college/university!” That’s just my personal opinion on how URMs in general are viewed to colleges/universities. </p>
<p>Albeit, individuals who are low income should be recognized more. It is AMAZING when you have no money and you’re still making things happen. You’re still not giving up. You’re still doing your best to succeed, strive and learn when you have little to no money that could help you. Perfect example could be a low income student who is pasisonate about learning and wants to be successful but because of finances can’t participate in certain things, where on the other hand, you have a rich kid who has no passion for learning but because of his/her income, could make it seem as if he/she cares so much about learning. IMO, being low income should be a ‘hook’ in college admissions. The only problem with this is that many colleges are need-blind, so they make decisions without looking at income. But yeah, overall I do agree with fact that being low income should be incorporated into AA.</p>
<p>I HATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Asians didn’t do anything wrong!!! Why are asians being harmed from this…asians were discriminated too like when they were building railroads…the phrase “not a Chinaman’s chance” comes from that era and now may apply to college admissions. Japanese internment camps (no known cases of Japanese-americans spying or anything). Just because asians are bad at English and really had no major thing for equality (blacks had MLK, MalcolmX, etc and Latinos had Cesar Chaves, etc) doesnt mean we have to take this crap. You guys discriminated us before and you discriminate us again? Asians have it even WORSE than white people which shouldn’t make much sense…white people are just out to get them Asians huh?</p></li>
<li><p>Race should not be a factor in admissions. Colleges should not care if someone’s native american, latin american, african american or whatever race the applicant is. Don’t make race and gender a factor in admissions because it makes absolutely no difference as long as they are qualified…it’s ridiculous to see Asians working their butt off during HS (like 4.7GPA, 2300+ SAT, loads of ECs) and rejected from HYPSM while some hotshot athlete or native american gets in…It’s true Americans (White) treated native americans like crap (put them in reservations and such) but why do Asians have to bear the cost of their action? It’s just so unfair. Colleges should look at legit admission stats (like academic/extracurricular merits, personality, recommendations, etc) instead of admitting native americans because of reverse discrimination. Also, academic performance also shows how well you’re going to do at a college so admitting a 3.3 1900SAT ORM to the top 30 schools may lead them to struggle academically and those people do not reflect the intellect/diligence of overachieving 4.8 GPA 2200+ SAT students who get in through their own work. There’s a study showing that black people admitted into Law school based on Reverse disc are much more likely to end up at the bottom of their class, drop out, or fail the bar, which ends up hurting rather then helping.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I know i’ve been ranting about this…I just want to say that I have nothing against you native americans or other URM’s who benefit from Reverse Discrimination…I just HATE HATE HATE the policy being an ORM myself.</p>
<p>As far as low income students go just give them financial aid and admit them if their academic and other achievements merit them admissions. Colleges already factor in what school you go to so it’s not like they are favoring rich private schools it’s just that smarter/motivated students tend to go there.</p>
<p>I dont know that much about reverse discrimination but I’ve seen plenty of not-so-qualified URM get into top schools where highly qualified ORM get flat out rejected.</p>
<p>If you look at the racial composition of UC’s where race is not a factor, the percentage of Asians especially at top UC’s (berkeley and LA) is very high and it’s not because California has lots of asians CA has a large Latino population as well. </p>
<p>As far as diversity goes its not like the UC’s are filled with white and asian people. Also, URM can get into top schools if they work hard. If Reverse discrimination didnt exist everyone would have an equal chance of getting into top schools so it’s totally fair.</p>
<p><a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf</a>'</p>
<p>im sorry about this long ranting post. I hope nobody is offended this rant is entirely against the POLICY not those who benefit from the policy.</p>
<p>btw why is it even CALLED affirmative action? What does it affirm? Just call it reverse discrimination because that’s what it IS!! How does favoring URM ‘affirmative’ action?</p>
<p>AA sounds better than RD. RD sounds like they are favoring one race against another even though that is exactly what they are doing.</p>
<p>Does anyone besides me realize that the term “reverse discrimination” makes about as much sense as terms like irregardless?</p>
<p>It’s called “reverse discrimination” because it’s discriminating against people who aren’t used to being discriminated against. It’s not like “normal” discrimination because it helps minorities instead of hurting them, the way proper discrimination should. It’s kind of weird that even people who oppose affirmative action use that kind of language; why would they automatically think of it as “reverse” when it’s the same as regular discrimination?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This, I know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point exactly. Semantically speaking, “reverse discrimination” is just discrimination, since discrimination is defined as opposing or supporting a group, due to certain characteristics. Instead of labeling it under a term which makes little sense, it would be more apt to say that certain policies are used to discriminate against the majority, as opposed to the normal de facto policies of discriminating against minorities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t even have to qualify if you don’t want to. When the legislature crafts bias-crime legislation, the text of the legislation doesn’t actually mention the race or the sex of the victim or the perpetrator. If a black guy beats up a white guy specifically to terrorize white people, it’s the same bias-crime as if it had been the reverse. The fact that you’re a majority doesn’t make you fair game for racist discrimination. </p>
<p>Anyway, this isn’t particularly tied to affirmative action. Despite the popularity of this subject on this website, actual demographic data doesn’t bear out fears that whites and Asians are being forced out of college. While I can understand the arguments against affirmative action, it often looks like a scapegoat – the white man’s equivalent of the race card – to explain away what is really an unpredictable admissions process at top colleges. Are some people unfairly beaten out at Harvard admissions because of their race? Possibly. But you can’t be sure why an individual got in and another individual didn’t, based solely on race. After all, it’s not as if everyone who “deserves” to go to an top school gets in even in the states without affirmative action.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so far off base, its a little astounding.
Yes, “past injustices” are in the past. Obviously. However the effects are still being felt by the descendants of those who suffered directly from these injustices, which is partly the cause of the “cultural priorities” that plague these groups. Not being able to send children to school past the eighth grade up until the mid 1900s had something to do with it. Having kids attend schools with outdated materials and crowded in small buildings up until the 1960s also played a part. Being discouraged and terrorized when it came to attending college also played a role. Its easy for us to look at our country, with a Black president and diverse people in multiple leadership positions and think we’ve come so far. But don’t forget: the Civil Rights act that banned racial segregation in schools (essentially making them truly equal) was passed in 1964 - only 46 years ago. That’s really only one generation, as in a person born in that year would be turning 46 now, and would have a kid in their 20s maybe. It will take more than one generation to erase disparities that have arisen over hundreds of years.</p>
<p>That said, I believe that amending AA so that it includes low income people of all races is a good idea. Many opportunities in life come from having economic opportunity, and poor whites are nearly as bad off opportunity wise as poor blacks and latinos. </p>
<p>The bottom line is: you get farther when you have generational money and economic opportunity. Families like this send their kids to better schools, have tutors, can afford to “socialize” their kids more (i.e piano, soccer, ballet). Historically it was easier to amass generational wealth or get economic opportunity when one was white. These opportunities tend to increase over generations. AA is trying to create these opportunities in communities that historically haven’t had them offered.</p>
<p>socio-economic affirmative action is essentially the most fair form of AA. Yeah, I know colleges say they want to increase diversity and get more women in, but to screw very accomplished candidates who have come from less affluent backgrounds is wrong.
I have no problem giving a boost to a hispanic who came from a low family income and accomplished a lot, I would be happy to have such an individual in my college.
But to take a privliged URM over an under privliged ORM just because of the “hispanic card” is stupid and disgraceful.
You can’t help it if your a certain ethnicity/race. You were born with it!!!
not all asians are born into affluent families and not all blacks/hispanics are born into poor conditions.
socio-eco.>>>>>>>>race/ethnicity</p>
<p>oh yeah. even if you leave the race section blank, adcoms will still know by your family background and even your name.
if you have a chinese name, with parents born in China, adcoms are going to say, “he/she is chinese”, which leads to the same problem if the applicant had put asian under race instead of leaving it blank.</p>
<p>@Lola
This is wrong because I’m Asian with a German name.</p>
<p>My thoughts:</p>
<p>I don’t think AA is all that great for THIS TIME PERIOD. Back in the day when discrimination was prevalent and a real issue this was required to alter the people minds. Now that the “letter of the law” is established I think we need to focus on the “spirit of the law”. There are others who are disadvantaged just as much as URM. As stated the financially underprivalegd need help too for example. This is big for me. I think this whole AA thing needs to be changed from racial to financial. Squelchy pointed out the Asian dilemma (I disagree whole heartedly however. If you look at the engineering programs across the country then you will find that asians are heavily accounted for. Asians certainly dominate top tier acadamia.) and wealthy minorites prove that the whole racial classification is flawed. If colleges trully preach diversity then Minorities will be just fine without AA. </p>
<p>Those who trully need help are the financially struggling. </p>
<p>And lightzout, props to you. Your the kind of person AA is targeting and deserve to get every opportunity it affords you.</p>