<p>I have NO PROBLEM with AA supporting POOR URMS. The only thing I argue against is a RICH URM, getting PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT through AA. Don't give me a line about colleges looking at financial background because I have seen a rich URM get preferential treatment with my own eyes.</p>
<p>Let me give you two examples of kids who graduated last year from my school:</p>
<p>1) Asian Indian
1590 Sat
750+ all sat 2s
2/70 rank
4.0 gpa
VP of class and decent ecs
Rejected from Harvard and Columbia (not even waitlist)
Middle class</p>
<p>2) African American
1500 Sat
750+ all sat 2s
10/70 rank
3.8 gpa
treasurer of class and decent ecs
Accepted into Harvard, Yale, and MIT
Middle class</p>
<p>There is something wrong with this picture.</p>
<p>I think the biggest mistake people make believing that in a selective college process that it all begins and ends with the numbers. While the numbers represent an objective criterial that gets you over the first hurdle, it is usually the subjective criteria that separates you from the rest of the pack. </p>
<p>Have you considered the subjective factors such as the essays, interviews, recs, and most important the schools institutional mission. At the end of the day select schools look into crafting a well rounded class.</p>
<p>I would recommend watching the short Amherst clip
"NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" examines the admission process at Amherst. View a short segment that aired on PBS in June 2004</p>
<p>That, in itself, is a racist statement. Race is an entirely social construct, and most, and I'm speaking on the behalf of a LARGE majority, of biologists agree.</p>
<p>Yeah okay, so back to my post lol. How credible is the author's story? You've said that Dartmouth's mission is to secure NA educaton, but what about for other UNDEREPRESENTED minorities?</p>
<p>Probably somewhat true. They probably don't still use the sticker system. And it was probably only a small percentage to being with.</p>
<p>And, as I've said in every single one of these threads, blacks at every economic level are at a disadvantage to whites because they're funneled to inferior schools through gerrymandering and housing discrimination. We are NOT a real integrated society outside of these universities and , sometimes, the workplace. And we won't be until these more important issues are halted so that inequality is not present in these children's formative years.</p>
<p>And to LawSchoolBound, who had the good sense of humor to post lyrics to a band that wrote for "white kids" and a rapper that wrote for "black kids"... Most of the people that buy rap records are white. Popular rap is, sadly, a modern day from of the minstrel show.</p>
<p>I feel AA should not be a part of admissions process because there are plenty of people from less then optimal situtions that get into great colleges from great grades. Not just from race. </p>
<p>AA is poorly aimed, instead it should help those who are poor. A white person can rise up from terrible learning situtions and a black person can be from a great learning situation. </p>
<p>The diversity claim is rather interesting, if you can measure diversity. Diversity comes from personality and not from the color of your skin. If diversity was measured from the color of you skin then multiracial people should be accepted above all others.</p>
<p>I love CC. Everyone is waaaay too smart to consider anyone else's arguments and just spits out their own opinion even if it's shown up in the topic already.</p>
<p>It's more than an economic problem, which is why its treated as more than an economic problem. Poor whites and poor blacks do not end up at schools of the same quality (See: Housing, redistricting). Poor asians and poor blacks do not end up at schools of the same quality (See: Housing, redistricting). Their situation is similarly different at EVERY economic level when dealing with public schooling.</p>
<p>Moral of the story: AA is ineffective as a result of housing and political tinkering ruining the system at the formative levels of these children's lives.</p>
<p>Everyone including minorities agrees that its BS</p>
<p>Minorities feel its a hit on their pride, and for the most part disagree with its application in the 21st century</p>
<p>If anything AA is racist against white people. </p>
<p>Merit and economicbackround should be the only thing looked at when applying to schools</p>
<p>That is F BS that a rich black kid at a private school gets extra help rather then a poor white kid that lives in the ghetto- the same backround as these AA minorities we are talking about. </p>
The diversity claim is rather interesting, if you can measure diversity. Diversity comes from personality and not from the color of your skin. If diversity was measured from the color of you skin then multiracial people should be accepted above all others.
</p>
<p>Then everyone should be admitted. Truth is race is a handy category to sort people who have a diversity of experiences. Even though race is a social construct there is still a great deal of social norms that are internalized by minorities. So skin color is important. Perhaps you can't effectively quantitatively measure diversity but there are definitely qualitative measurements you can make and attempt to improve. On multiracial people they represent a different group. Someone half black half white does not have half a black experience and half a white experience they have their own unique experience that is different from the others.</p>
<p>
Everyone including minorities agrees that its BS</p>
<p>Minorities feel its a hit on their pride, and for the most part disagree with its application in the 21st century</p>
<p>If anything AA is racist against white people.</p>
<p>Merit and economicbackround should be the only thing looked at when applying to schools</p>
<p>That is F BS that a rich black kid at a private school gets extra help rather then a poor white kid that lives in the ghetto- the same backround as these AA minorities we are talking about.</p>
<p>All i got to say IS F BS.
</p>
<p>First, thank you for speaking for everyone. Idiot. You speak for no one but yourself.
Second, racism isn't "against" anyone. It's against everyone even those that perpetrate it. And its not reverse racism. Affirmative action is about recognizing that differences exist and working to preserve diversity. Colorblindness would destroy any sort of polyculturalism that could exist, replacing it with a homogenous white culture into which every minority assimilates.
Economic background IS considered, in addition to race, merit, athletic ability, legacy status, and every other factor possible.
A rich black kid is not the same as a rich white kid, same as a poor white kid isn't the same as a poor black kid. It's just not that simple.
And by the way, thank you for articulating your arguments so well.</p>
<p>INCOME is more important, and should be what is judged here. Quit being stereotypical and classifying races as non-white as people in the ghetto, without opportunities, and bad education. Colleges know income, and colleges know school profile. That's a good enough background check for people to understand where an applicant is coming from, and if they truly were at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>There just aren't that many truly rich black families/applicants for that to be a concern. And, regardless of race, applicants whose families can fund a chair or build a library aren't part of the general admissions pool.</p>