<p>Honestly, I think that people need to stop complaining about affirmative action. Most top schools are 85% white/asian. Non-Urms are complaining because 15% of each school goes to minority students. Furthermore, there are very few students who get accepted to top schools who don't deserve it. There are white kids, asian kids, black kids, hispanic kids, hell probably even some kids from antartica(just kidding :)) who don't deserve to go to the schools they got into. But we are not the ones to judge. Obviously the admissions officers saw something in them that we didn't. Because I know many minority students who were rejected from top schools with scores and GPAs equal to the white and asian students who I knew got accepted. Stop worrying about something you don't like and do your best to get into the school anyways. </p>
<p>I am a URM and I got rejected from the one Ivy I applied to. Although I know that my resume was up to par, I am not going out looking to blame other students because I did not get in. I even know another URM with lower stats and grades than mine who got into the same school. Just stop complaining over the 15% of spots you can't have and work to be part of the 85% left.</p>
<p>I'm actually African (Mauritius) by citizenship, but I'm Chinese (and listed myself as Asian on my apps). I was considering putting "African-American" but I didn't want to cheat myself, and have to look back at it later ("the only reason you got in is 'cuz you listed yourself as black").</p>
<p>Now, an argument can be made here, since I got into Caltech and not MIT. Caltech doesn't do any racial quotas and ends up with 8% (Princeton Review), while MIT deliberately strove to raise its URM percentage this year, last year's being 19% (Princeton Review) and this year's being 30ish% (according to an MIT Admissions Office thing... I forget where I saw it).</p>
<p>However, look! Caltech carries 33% Asians and MIT carries 27% Asians. Is it really that much difference? Maybe, if you're that Asian on the borderline? </p>
<p>Nah, I think more of it was attributed to luck, actually... and I'm not going to either Caltech OR MIT... I'm going to Rice...</p>
<p>Honestly, I believe that the concept of AA is a little annoying in that working harder and being pushed harder by parents actually proves to be attributed to RACE of all things and the colleges don't even consider social status and whatnot. If they're going to consider these kinds of things at all, I think every individual should be treated independently of their race, but still within the context of their entire environment. But this is a fantasy that would never be possible, so for now the admissions committees stick with racial (and nearly racist [white man's burden???]) stereotypes.</p>
<p>EDIT (addition): But to tell the truth, I don't think it really matters that much. I think everyone should just try their hardest to do their best they can. Hopefully the blacks can rise out of their stereotype one day.</p>
<p>EDIT (explanation): By white man's burden, I mean that in some viewpoints, it seems like they believe that blacks are uneducated as a whole and that they want to educate them.</p>
<p>Race plays a decent role in the admissions process</p>
<p>However, I agree that race shouldn't play a role whatsoever in the application process... we are all born equal, skin color should have no factor whatsoever. However, financial situations should be considered, because finance usually effects the chances a student has to succeed. Lets face it... if theres one spot left in a college and there are two students they are choosing between with the same exact stats, only one is african-american and one is white... the african-american will get in 99% of the time over the white. I think it just isn't fair.</p>
<p>Exactly, I REALLY can't believe this is even happening. RACE PLAYING A FACTOR in admissions? That's complete ********. One's skin color should have NO AFFECT on his/her chances of geting into a college. WHY doesn't colleges see this? I didn't choose to be Asian... and they are going to make it harder for me to get into their school because I was born Asian?</p>
<p>I know what you guys are going to say... Concentrate on your own grades and stop complaining... but seriously though, this is a "politically-correct" form of discrimination. I just don't see how one's skin color can come into play in admissions to a public college.</p>
<p>I honestly can't see why nothing is being done about this b.s.</p>
<p>I know... I may seem like an angry kid, but seriously. My cousin, who has a 3.8 GPA, 2000 SATS, 800/680 SAT II, HOURS of community service, clubs... he got rejected into UC BERKELEY. My Mexican friend, however, 3.5, 1550 SATS, got IN. It was my cousin's ****ing dream ever since he was 10 to get in UCB. Ahh, whats the point, it's not like anythings gonna change.</p>
<p>Berkeley doesn't have AA.
I am 100% with the socioeconomic status designation instead of race.
The thing that really annoys me is the URM who doesn't try in school because he thinks/knows that he will get into a top college. It's very true where I live (upper middle class/upper class area). I know this one Mexican kid who has told me time and again that "all he needs to do" is keep a 3.5 GPA and he's in any school. I'm not saying he's not smart (he's actually pretty good at math and takes a few APs) but he uses the URM status as an excuse to be lazy in school. Yes, I know he is one of the anomalies, but it's really annoying when people will take advantage of AA to get into top colleges. It should be by socioeconomic status since in general, those from poorer areas are all disadvantaged in some way and deserve a leg up in admissions.</p>
<p>you make it seem just because we're urms we conform with low scores and just sit on our butts all day. I'm a mexican american first generation, i didn't start taking english classes until the 4th grade due to the bad lausd system and even then it was bilingual but mostly spanish, you don't even start learning what a verb is till 4th or 3rd grade. I like many do deserve to get into these schools, I'm not saying all but most kids that aren't urms can afford sat classes and their parents push them to go to college. In my family as long as you finish hs and can read and speak it well that's good enough. College is something that is concidered but mostly looked upon as a waste of time since, after hs you're just supposed to work and move on with your life. You don't have time to do summer programs since you lack money, you can't do e.cs' since you have to get a job to help out with the bills.. my point is we do deserve these schools we do work hard and we put up with a lot of stereotypes</p>
<p>To M18913S: What makes you more deserving than the white coal miners son from Appalachia that was raised in comparable circumstances. Why are you any more deserving of a preference than the daughter of the 2nd generation Vietnamese sweat shop worker with a 4.4 GPA and 2200 SAT's? Or the son of the Polish laid off factory worker from Youngstown? Because you have a hispanic sounding last name?</p>
<p>I know that but also why does everyone say that just because we're Hispanics we're basing our entire college application upon that. I was just trying to state to the others that not all Mexicans are lazy and just kick back to get into college, don't categorize us in one group when we're all not the same. I have friends that are Asian, pacific islander, Vietnamese, black and white we all pretty much have the same past and we all deserve the same chance. I never did say "well if my race helps me why not? "i never stated that, I was just defending my race.</p>
<p>The stats at Harvard this year were over 11% African-American, slightly under 11% Latino and 2.5% Native-American. These are admits, not the yields so the final percentages may be higher or lower. The raw numbers are about 330, 310 and 30. That means almost a quarter of their admits were from these classifications. At Harvard. As reported in The Crimson.</p>
<p>It's obvious: they reach for minority students (but not Asians). </p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence backs this up. From our high school, 2 of the 3 kids admitted to Columbia have SAT's and grades nowhere near the top of the class. That has been true for several years. One of the kids admitted to Brown takes standard, not honors classes. </p>
<p>These schools have decided to engage in social engineering. Is that good or bad? I have two main problems with it. First, I think most of it is disingenuous. How many of the kids taken are 1/8 or 1/4 minority and how many of them are actually embedded in those minority cultures? From anecdotal evidence, it appears the schools are actually wary of taking too many kids who are "authentically" minority - res kids, inner city kids, barrio kids - and they prefer kids who fit the label but who actually come from the white world of suburban schools. Those kids are more likely to succeed in that college. If they're taking kids with mostly a genetic link to their minority, what exactly is the corellation to improving the state of the minority generally? </p>
<p>Second, while Harvard trumpets their minority admit success, the education offered to most minority students in this country is getting worse. This has the smell of a big liberal buy-off, of a classic paternal non-solution which avoids dealing with the real issues facing kids. Over half of young black men don't graduate high school. More young black men in their late 20's are in jail at any given moment than have jobs. That's terrible. That's disgusting. That's a social failure. </p>
<p>Think who gets hurt by Harvard. Not the rich because believe me they still get in. It's the middle and working class, whether white or Asian. Is a white kid from a blue collar family more or less diversity than an upper middle class part-minority kid? Harvard and these other schools choose the latter. </p>
<p>But there are benefits: for every kid taken that's a reach, other kids are pushed into other schools and, you know, that's not a loss. The amount of attention paid to these few prestige schools is way out of proportion with their actual meaning. This is a giant country and a bigger world.</p>
<p>What I don't understand is how you seem to forget those high achieving URM's that get rejected EVERYWHERE.</p>
<p>My hispanic friend that graduated two years ago:</p>
<p>Valedictorian (3.8 UW)
5 AP's (it's a decent amount, 4.4 average)
1450 SAT I
750 average SAT II
NHS
Yearbook
Community service
Debate
A good bit of awards</p>
<p>Rejected at:</p>
<p>MIT
Cornell
Cal Tech
Penn</p>
<p>Accepted at</p>
<p>UT Austin (of course)</p>
<p>As for me, I know some URM's that got into Princeton from my area with far lower stats than me, fewer awards, etc, and I am a URM as well. It is more than just numbers, but I will not say that URM is not an advantage--people make it out to be a much larger advantage than it is since there are also non-hooked asians and whites that get in with low stats as well.</p>
<p>"A URM got into HArvard with a 1200"
That statement means nothing to me. College Admissions are too subjective in the United States to make a comment like that!! What else did this person do in terms of grades, clubs, etc? This comment serves to create a very misleading and wrong view of AA.
Wake up,
A URM will not get into Harvard with a 1200 and nothing else...period....</p>
<p>If there are so many URMs who have such wonderful qualifications, then why do we need Affirmative Action? Let them compete with everybody else, and unless there is a racist conspiracy among the admissions people against URMs, they will get a % of spots like everybody else.</p>
<p>Ooh, everyone's making really good points. Highly qualified URMs don't get in automatically because of AA, but then... what is the point of AA if there are so many smart URMs? Very very good points on both sides. Let me bring up another point though. I have met URMs who don't like AA because it makes them feel like they're getting things that they don't deserve.</p>
<p>Originally Posted by bobbobbob
no its not illegal. the use of quotas is illegal. they can still use aa.</p>
<p>"Proposition 209
SEC. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. "</p>
<p>Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't that make A.A. illegal?</p>
<hr>
<p>As weird as it sounds, it does not make aa illegal.</p>
<p>UC v. Bakke said that the UCs may use affirmative action "goals", but not the use of hard quotas.</p>
<p>"Ooh, everyone's making really good points. Highly qualified URMs don't get in automatically because of AA, but then... what is the point of AA if there are so many smart URMs? Very very good points on both sides. Let me bring up another point though. I have met URMs who don't like AA because it makes them feel like they're getting things that they don't deserve."</p>
<p>I don't like AA since people always infer that I only got in because of my race. I, in my opinion, was well qualified for top universities, but my race makes most think otherwise.</p>
<p>AA, in some cases, can make or break an applicant, but even highly qualified, according to CC standards which are COMPLETELY based of STATS, URM's get rejected for, once again according to CC, less qualified URM's.</p>
<p>"Valedictorian (3.8 UW)
5 AP's (it's a decent amount, 4.4 average)
1450 SAT I
750 average SAT II
NHS
Yearbook
Community service
Debate
A good bit of awards
Rejected at:
MIT
Cornell
Cal Tech
Penn"
NHS doesnt really count as a club. 3 clubs is definitely not enough for MIT, Cal Tech, Penn, or Cornell. No surprise that he got rejected.</p>