<p>The argument basically goes like this (I think) (I'm not saying I agree):
Some minorities are underrepresented (i.e.: You have a lower percentage of students belonging to such minorities enrolled than in the general population). This is bad for two reasons:
1. Everybody is likely to add something from his one culture to the college. So, you want ppl from as diverse background as possible so different things are added.
2. This is caused by the fact that those minorities had been opressed economically if not politically. Therefore, some minority students are as smart as white students with higher scores but got lower scores because they didn't had access to the same level of education.
(3. It looks bad not to have black kids.)</p>
<p>Therefore, a solution is to lower the standarts for such students (i.e: AA)</p>
<p>i'm not for AA or against it. but if you guys think AA is going to be dead soon, you're wrong. AA was part of the Civil Rights Act, which African-Americans fought so hard for. They're not gonna sit around and watch AA become entirely banned. As long as minorities are minorities and they are socioeconomically disadvantaged, AA will exist. </p>
<p>Speaking of "African-Americans", I would have to say political correctness in this country has become absurd. If you see a black man in America, one would quickly point and label him as "African-American", while he could be from Haiti or Jamaica for all we know. and a white person born in Africa would never be called African-American. Example: Actress Charlize Theron is South African. You guys ever hear the media calling her African-American?</p>
<p>I think AA is rewarding the wrong students. A white student from the ghetto would be far more disadvantaged than a black student going to Andover. Still, there is a high correlation between minority status and being socioeconomically disadvantaged. I think that because we have no better ideas, we should stick with it, at least for another generation or so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm not for AA or against it. but if you guys think AA is going to be dead soon, you're wrong. AA was part of the Civil Rights Act, which African-Americans fought so hard for. They're not gonna sit around and watch AA become entirely banned. As long as minorities are minorities and they are socioeconomically disadvantaged, AA will exist.[/quote[</p>
<p>It doesn't matter if AA was in the civil rights act or not. AA is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the only reason government organizations have been allowed to continue this policy is because the supreme court previously ruled that there "was a legitimate government interest" in continuing to execute the policy. It passed the strict scrutiny test. </p>
<p>As I said before, the last Supreme Court decision upholding AA was 5-4. The fifth vote was O'Connor. She's gone and was replaced with Alito. If you think the ultraconservative Alito is going to vote to keep AA on the books, you're dreaming. </p>
<p>I know that you weren't actually going to do this (well...I hope you weren't), but I have to say that it really frustrates me that people even toy with the idea. I know AA is not fair. I have said that a thousand times. I know that it would be better if it were based on socioeconomic status rather than ethnicity. </p>
<p>However, as a URM, it frustrates me that people try to wiggle their way into qualifying themselves as a URM to gain advantage in admissions. Like the 1/16th Hispanic = Hispanic. So your great-grandmother was born in Spain? Congrats. That doesn't make you Hispanic. I think also it's mildly insulting, like, "Oh, well I'll mark myself down as if I'm from a dumber and less-qualified race and so then my accomplishments will seem more outstanding." Maybe that's not the way that people intend to come across when they start threads saying MY GRANDFATHER LIVED IN AFRICA FOR ONE MONTH ON SAFARI AND MY MOM WAS BORN THERE DURING THAT SAFARI, THAT MAKES ME AFRICAN-AMERICAN RIGHT?!, but it sure seems that way. </p>
<p>The original intent of AA was never really achieved, I guess. If I get in to any Ivy League schools, instead of being proud of myself I will feel guilty from hearing a million "Oh, you only got in because you're Mexican." If I were rich and had a million opportunities sans discrimination or language barrier or anything, then that guilt would be justified. However, such is not the case and I don't think I should have to be ashamed that "my race got me in."</p>
<p>I'm sorry if I sound hostile...I just don't think people need to lie about their ethnicity to get into a school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The original intent of AA was never really achieved, I guess. If I get in to any Ivy League schools, instead of being proud of myself I will feel guilty from hearing a million "Oh, you only got in because you're Mexican." If I were rich and had a million opportunities sans discrimination or language barrier or anything, then that guilt would be justified. However, such is not the case and I don't think I should have to be ashamed that "my race got me in."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're 100% right. Most of the people making hiring decisions are well aware of the system for Ivy League admissions. They also know that because race is a factor, a perception may exist that a minority job applicant may not be on the same plain of a majority applicant graduating from the same school. There is a widespread belief that minority graduates of Ivy League schools were only there because of their skin color. That is disgusting and a shame, but nevertheless it is out there</p>
<p>That is why I am opposed to AA. It hurt minorities. If a minority were to get into an Ivy Leagure school without AA it would speak more to thier credit as smart, hardworking individuals in overcoming the institutional burdons on them. AA does not level the playing field; by establishing the universal belief that minorities graduating from Ivy league schools are inferior, it simply takes discrimination away from the university admissions process and places at the door of the employer. </p>
<p>Indeed, I would argue that AA has done more to help white Ivy League students than it has done to help minorities. Because whites must now work harder to get into Ivy League schools, employers know that if you're a white kid from an Ivy school nowadays you had to be extremely good to defeat the AA system. </p>
<p>Whereas white Ivy graduates are heralded as being bright enough to beat the AA system, minority graduates are seen to have been using the system to be artifically proped up. Of course in many instances this is not the case, but the perception of this as a reality is all that matters in the end. This is why AA must go.</p>
<p>after i got accepted to harvard i heard all the bs about how i got in because i'm a minority, etc. everyone overlooked my stellar grades, my awesome recs, my community involvement, and my near-perfect ACT scores and only saw the color of my skin. i almost started to believe the hype, that i only got in because i was a URM and that i took the spot of a more-qualified ORM. However, now that I am a student at Harvard, i know that that is simply not the case. All the URMs i've spoken to (which is a lot) did something amazing, they didn't just come from the ghetto and make decent grades in school.</p>
<p>also, people constantly say that blacks and hispanics "steal the spot of a more qualified ORM." but during my time here, i have seen sooo many more lesser qualified legacies, athletes, and wealthy kids, than any minorities. if anything, those are the people that should have the spotlight. the op should have titled this thread: "I'm going to say that i'm a football player (i'm not)" or "I'm going to say that i'm rich (i'm not)". Because, if you ask me, those are the people who have the absolute advantage in college admissions.</p>
after i got accepted to harvard i heard all the bs about how i got in because i'm a minority, etc. everyone overlooked my stellar grades, my awesome recs, my community involvement, and my near-perfect ACT scores and only saw the color of my skin. i almost started to believe the hype, that i only got in because i was a URM and that i took the spot of a more-qualified ORM. However, now that I am a student at Harvard, i know that that is simply not the case. All the URMs i've spoken to (which is a lot) did something amazing, they didn't just come from the ghetto and make decent grades in school.</p>
<p>also, people constantly say that blacks and hispanics "steal the spot of a more qualified ORM." but during my time here, i have seen sooo many more lesser qualified legacies, athletes, and wealthy kids, than any minorities. if anything, those are the people that should have the spotlight. the op should have titled this thread: "I'm going to say that i'm a football player (i'm not)" or "I'm going to say that i'm rich (i'm not)". Because, if you ask me, those are the people who have the absolute advantage in college admissions.
[/quote]
I think you're missing the point of how AA works at Ivies. Due to the large amount of qualified applicants applying to Ivies there is generally not a noticeable difference individually. However, in aggregate, it's almost assured there will be differences.</p>
<p>An asian, with a 2400 and 3 800s in SAT IIs can, and does get rejected from Harvard (with poor ECs). In fact, I'd think it's common. I'd be ultra surprised if any black student gets rejected from an Ivy with the same stats. The qualifications to get into an Ivy between asians and blacks, hispanics (and even whites) are significant and measurable.</p>
<p>However, due to the private nature of these schools I'm not sure I have a problem with it. Only in publics do I really care, and then primarily about athletics.</p>
<p>and once again you proved my point. while that asian gets rejected, pretend the other student isn't black or hispanic, but instead a nationally ranked athlete. he'll be accepted in a heartbeat. the qualifications to get into an ivy are not as drastic as you think between races, but very drastic between legacies, athletes, and the wealthy. i know so many people who got recruited for football, but had subpar test scores and mediocre grades. but they could bring harvard's football team to a ivy league championship, or donate a new freshman dorm, or are descendants of a long-line of ivy-leaugers. however, almost all of the minorities i know, worked their asses off to get in. in fact, many of them are gates millineum scholars and national merit (not just national achievement) and a slew of other things that are comparable to their white counterparts. the stereoptypical AA candidate, the black kid who has only a 1960 SAT and 3.5 gpa, i have yet to meet at harvard. but i have met the children of the wealthy with similar credentials. so, when people bash AA for being so unfair, why don't they discuss the legacies or the the athletes or the rich kids, because they are the ones who don't deserve their spots.</p>
<p>I don't believe any intelligent person is saying that the minorities who are accepted to the likes of HYP are unqualified and don't deserve to be there. Each that I've met at my school has been an extraordinary individual, much as hotpiece described, with great and respectable accomplishments. </p>
<p>While it would be a mistake to think that were it not for AA, they would not be there, it would also be a mistake to believe that AA didn't help them get in. Each year, thousands of talented students apply and don't get in, so clearly talent and accomplishment alone are not what separates the thin envelopes from the thick. </p>
<p>In this regard, my belief is that if you are a minority student who is talented and accomplished, AA will give you that boost you need to get in. Notice that the student still needs to be talented - there is no substitute for that. But while a 2390 SAT white kid may still be rejected given the applicant pool, a similarly qualified minority is sure to hit the golden ticket - because of that small, albeit significant nudge, AA provides.</p>
<p>i don't think sports recruits are AS bad as AA. Athletes work hard to get where they are, and spend countless hours practicing and getting better at the sports. whereas, skin color is just something people are born with. even if someone does everything wrong and makes the worst decisions or watever, they will always remain african american, mexican or another URM.</p>
<p>I don't believe any intelligent person is saying that the minorities who are accepted to the likes of HYP are unqualified and don't deserve to be there. Each that I've met at my school has been an extraordinary individual, much as hotpiece described, with great and respectable accomplishments. </p>
<p>While it would be a mistake to think that were it not for AA, they would not be there, it would also be a mistake to believe that AA didn't help them get in. Each year, thousands of talented students apply and don't get in, so clearly talent and accomplishment alone are not what separates the thin envelopes from the thick. </p>
<p>In this regard, my belief is that if you are a minority student who is talented and accomplished, AA will give you that boost you need to get in. Notice that the student still needs to be talented - there is no substitute for that. But while a 2390 SAT white kid may still be rejected given the applicant pool, a similarly qualified minority is sure to hit the golden ticket - because of that small, albeit significant nudge, AA provides.</p>