Is Affirmative Action Bad for You?

<p>YES, affirmative action is often bad for its "beneficiaries". I do think that many people would benefit from going to less competitive schools, where they could be challenged but not overwhelmed. I did not hear what you referred to on NPR, but I am inclined to think that those minority students who don't pass the bar exam are not ending up incredibly successful lawyers! What's missing is, as Cangel suggests, some answers to questions such as whether similarly qualified students at somewhat less selective schools have a higher pass rate.</p>

<p>Personally I suspect (and what drives me crazy is that you can never know for sure) that I might have been a "beneficiary" of affirmative action of a sort in my graduate school applications because I was a woman going into a heavily male-dominated field. My background was weak compared to that of most others, and I managed to stay afloat and ultimately finish my master's degree with a respectable GPA only by studying every minute, not sleeping, taking extra time to finish, etc. So I did ultimately succeed, BUT, looking back, I think having my sanity during that period of my life might have been preferable to getting to be in one of the most selective programs in my field. Also, since most of the students in my program were international students, I think that Americans in general got preferential treatment in admission to my program, and Americans were way over-represented among people dropping out of the program.</p>

<p>I have heard similar things about some undergraduate institutions that use affirmative action, such as minority students are more likely to drop out, etc. Sybbie719 mentioned some of the obstacles that less privileged students face, but I would like to point out that the last thing you need when you are in that type of situation, needing to spend a lot of time outside of school working and so on, is to be in a school where you are underprepared and overwhelmed by the work!</p>

<p>I don't trust the universities at all. They stand to gain SO MUCH through affirmative action, in terms of being able to enhance their image as a "diverse" institution, and probably in terms of not getting into trouble with the government. I believe that universities are USING students from under-represented groups to benefit themselves, often at the cost of hurting the students. We are talking about students who are young and inexperienced, who do not know the pro-diversity pressures that universities are under, and who may not even be able to conceive of how hard it may be for them to succeed at the universities that are so enthusiastically admitting them, especially since many of these universities simply do not offer adequate support to these students once they are enrolled. Of course, by giving preferential admission to certain groups, you make it probable that SOME people from those groups will graduate, but it seems that in many cases many others from that group are sacrificed in the process. It can be VERY disruptive to your life to drop out, fail out, have to change fields, etc.</p>

<p>The problems of educational inequity should be fixed, but college and graduate school admissions are not the best place to do that. It would be great if this kind of easy solution could magically fix everything, but it can't. How about good funding for ALL of the public schools at the lower levels of education? This type of solution is much harder, but we need to accept that the background needed for many universities and jobs is significant, and good intentions alone can't make up for years of denied educational opportunities.</p>

<p>In my case, I would love it if I could meet a school recruiter or prospective employer and know that that person was judging me by my qualifications and not being biased either against me OR for me because I am a woman. I am not there to play games or to be used to help somebody's image or self-congratulatory and patronizing feelings of charity. I grew up in a middle-class neighborhood, both my parents are highly educated and employed full-time, etc.; in other words, I don't need charity. I don't think I have any hidden extra potential that somebody needs to bring out by admitting me to an academic program or hiring me for a job for which I don't really have the qualifications.</p>

<p>Finally, to avoid having people get mad at me unnecessarily, I am not saying that ALL people whose admission is affected by affirmative action are WAY less qualified than the standard. I think it really depends on the program. I have no doubt that there are SOME programs that are ready to lower their standards significantly to admit students whose presence they can use for their own purposes.</p>

<p>For those who wonder what happens to students who seem "unprepared" for highly selective schools, I recommend the book "A Hope in the Unseen" by Ron Suskind, about an African-American young man, Cedric Jennings, from a subpar public school in DC, who is accepted to Brown. It only goes through junior year, but the author updates info on Cedric online. It's an interesting, honest, and inspiring story.</p>

<p>NO WAY, affirmative action is not bad at all in most instances. The only time it is bad, if family has all the means and then they want a break for a rich URM kid to get into a top college over a poor non URM kid. Otherwise, the poor but Bright URM bring so many positive aspect into life and enrich the other kids in multiple ways. If school uses it that way, they will bring more inner city kids. This will allow others to follow and work harder.</p>

<p>Listening to the NPR program I seem to remember the linkage between graduating and passing the bar exam on the first try and then using this statistic as a justification for the agrument that URM's would be better served attending a lower tier law school.</p>

<p>Several comments. Many students fail the bar exam on the first try, but most ultimately pass it. So what is the big deal. Second, does the good professor believe that more URM's would pass the bar exam on the first stab if they went to a lower teir law school? This either doesn't make sense or says something about the first tier law schools.</p>

<p>Finally the big gripe against AA is that it displaces statistically better qualified non-minorities from attending top tier schools. Setting aside the argument as to what constitutes a first tier school, no nonminority student is displaced from Yale and, as a result, goes to the local community college. That student will end up at Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins or some other highly selective university. And who would claim that that student would receive an inferior education at any of these great universities.</p>

<p>And the displacing URM provides many benefits to our society upon graduation. I suspect that some are more likely to go into the area of civil rights law, much more likely to provide legal services to minority communities, serve as role models for youngsters, and be more involved in community service(according to the Dale and Kreuger study).</p>

<p>My only beef with AA is that it should be limited to "underpriviledged" URM's and even include highly underpriviledged nonminorities too. I see no reason to give the children of a Colin Powell or an Andy Young an AA pass just to fill some %age quota. That's very unfair and, I must say, quite racist.</p>

<p>Chinaman-</p>

<p>You said the "poor, but bright" URM can bring so many positive aspects into life. Since we're discussing Admission, not the giving of scholarship money, the "poor" URM in your post probably has lowers stats, right? Likewise, for the sake of this discussion, the wealthy URM has lower stats. You want the poor URM with the lower stats to get in, but the wealthy URM with lower stats to be rejected. Right? Therefore, you must feel that money is an equalizer among races. Thus, there really is no racial division or racial injustice....only socio-economic injustice. Is that what you are proposing?</p>

<p>momsdream:</p>

<p>I am saying that for an argument that HYPSM takes 5% (I do not know number so I made it up) seat for URM kids. They need to take a chance with poor URM (below $30000 family income) with 1000 SAT but reasonably GPA in his inner city like NY CIty, downtown LA and give him/her a chance. At the same time take a URM kid whose parents makes $150,000 and is attending a rich school the benefit of a leg early in the game, treat them differently than a poor URM kid in the same pool as white or asian kid. If school thinks that these kids shoul be in, these rich URM kids should be in based on the critrion that applies to white and asian. If a poor URM kids get in a elite prep school but his condition at home is still poor, he should be attending the admission critrion based on the poor URM kid. Thus, you are saying that socio economic kid has better justice. </p>

<p>Now my kid is on full fin aid, he should be treated like a regular white or asian kid as he has not gone through the social injustice. Admission for kids like me should be based on prevailing factors. However, if they can get admsission, like any poor person should be allowed to have fin aid as the present system allows. And once a poor URM kid become a parent and have gone trhough the benefit of attending a good college, his or her kids should not be allowed to have a URM Benefit reserved for poor. As kid has all the chance but did not avail it.</p>

<p>Chinaman, though economic situation is considered in the whole scheme of things it is currently not a "tag" category for elite college admissions as URM status is. That has been a issue of hot debate. The big question becomes why a well to do, advantage URM should get the statistical advantage of a tag over a non URM from a poor family environment. The answer is that economics is not considered in admissions as a big line item, but just as a tip. A large number of URMs who are accepted in the elite school are not "disadvantaged" economically. This was a subject of some discussion at my son's school as the URMs who did get into HPY last year did come from advantaged family background. There was not a murmur about the kids who got into colleges that may have been a slight step up for their stats who were on scholarship at the highschool and came through some of the programs that earmarked and helped kids from disadvantaged areas and situations. But those kids did not get into the most selective schools either. The minority applicants who did were good students with good test scores and ECs but not one non URM with such profiles got into any such schools without a major hook such as being a recruited athlete. </p>

<p>The bottom line regarding the URM situation is that the colleges have made a decision that they want more students from this group, and are willing to give them a boost in admissions. They have a host of good reasons for making this decision, and whether people agree with them or not, the supreme court has ruled that it is perfectly legal. Colleges often give boosts to any number of categories for admissions without anyone knowing about it. Former all female schools have given males a bit of a pass on the academic side, and everyone knows this. Engineering schools are a bit easier on females and we all know that too. Though geographic tips are not considered that big, I can tell that my personal data on admissions to HPY and others show that more unhooked, excellent student get into these schools from Western Pa, Cleveland than from the Midatlantic area and Westchester county in NY. In fact when I was in Westchester, I don't think I knew anyone who was unhooked who got into HPY, whereas I have lists of them from the the Mid west.</p>

<p>jamimom:</p>

<p>Yes nothing can be done to change the system but in turn it leads to problem with kids who may have legitimate shots in getting in without URM help. It does not allow URM kids to work harder and problem reamins same. People who immigrated recently and have less financial resources will kep working harder and will move and gain financial independence. We are providing fish but we are not teaching future generation how to catch fish themselves and thus not encouraging them to be financial indepndent. We should not give preference to URM kids whose parents migrated from africa or carribean recently. These immigrants URM kids are smart and should be treated equally. Yes supreme court has ordered it but that does not mean it is right, it means legal only.</p>

<p>One thing I need to add that recent asian immigrantion happened, thanks to Martin Luther King. But in order to honor him, we need to help more people, not just taking care of same old few families.</p>

<p>I would also bet that when it comes to black URMs, the same family income vs. SAT score rules apply. The wealthier the black parents, the higher the black students scores will be. If a top college is looking to fill 8 % of it's class with black students they at least need to find black students who can keep up with the work and graduate, since the college is measured of the eventual success of the black students at the college. Thus, the wealthier black applicants might have the 1200-1400 scores...while the poorer black applicants might have the 1000-1200 scores. That being the case, it is really to the school's and society's advantage to fill the class with poor black students who scored 1000 on their SATs when the average white student is scoring 1400? I don't think it's accurate to assume that all fo the black students are really poor scorers. Rather, many are below the average of the white applicant pool of the school...yet still in the top 1% of all black students taking the SAT. Thus, in the National pool of black applicants to ALL top schools, the 1350 scorer is the cream of the crop.....and what you're asking of a college is to turn them down if their family income is not indicative of a disadvantage....</p>

<p>It's not going to happen....</p>

<p>"People who immigrated recently and have less financial resources will kep working harder and will move and gain financial independence. We are providing fish but we are not teaching future generation how to catch fish themselves and thus not encouraging them to be financial indepndent.</p>

<p>You may not wish to give them fish, but teaching them to fish might not be the best solution either. First you have to clean up the pollution in the pond.</p>

<p>Momsdream:</p>

<p>H gave you a chance and you earn more than much more than many people on this board (since you caliam you were on top of the yale law class being a URM girl from yale I would bet you msut earn somewhere 300,000+). Your kid probably will get in HYPMS over my kid anyday, any time even though my kid has probly scored higher grade and worked harder. Your kid has smarter parent than my kid, he has better financial resources then my kid can ever imagine. Your kid has better language skills for parents who can help him. Yet your kid being a skin color should get over my kid? Is this kind of leg up for your kid is justified in any way? Tell me if it happens to you, you would be screaming. If you are a leagal system appointee, debate each sentence and logically provide argument over them why your kid has more disadvantage over my kid? I am ready to listen.</p>

<p>momsdream:</p>

<p>My kid has no disadvatge at all. I do not claim, I think he has the best opportunity lines up for him. My being financially less fortunate than you does not mean my kid can not work harder. He has to study harder to show his potential and work to come out of poverty. I just want to see who stopped your kid for not working hader and getting 1600 in SAT or taken AP BC Cal, AP History or AP chem or AP phsyics and scoring 4.0 GPA . NObody even you would have encorgaed him to work harder. If he did this, then he will be in on merit based. Otherwise your kid knew that he will get a leg up so why work harder. That is wrong.</p>

<p>Although it the overall scheme of things, income does correlate to test scores and academic achievement, there are pockets where this does not hold true. I know this as I lived in such a bubble myself for many years. Many of the beneficiaries of low income "special" are familes who are well educated and just do not make money but have thrown their time, energy and resources in educating their children. I lived in a community of postgrad students and their families and others who just never made income a big priority in their lives, but made cultural and academic wealth central to their parenting. These kids always did very well, in fact, much better than kids from income brackets much, much higher than theirs. You see this in Asian families alot. Some of the families that hire me to tutor their kids for SAT2 writing are very poor, but they come up with that money for tutors, and when I talk to those kids, they have been test tutored for a good deal of their lives. Also you do not become a piano or violin virtuoso through osmosis. Many, many hours of practice, instruction and many dollars went into those skills.</p>

<p>Chinaman:
There is no way you should assume that your kid has higher grades or has worked harder than someone who does not qualify for financial aid. Some kids who do not get aid realize that their tuition may be a huge financial burden to the family, and they work reallly really hard because they appreciate that fact. My kid worked his butt off during high school and is continuing that trend in college! Nothing was handed to him ...or us.</p>

<p>sokkermom:</p>

<p>When I did say that score higher, I mean to say to momsdream offer me a rebuttal that her kid has more disadvatge (parents gone to an IVy undergrad and yale Grad) over an immigrant with broken language skills. When I am claiming no disadvatge than her kid has no disadvantage whatsoever. If she wants her kid with 1400 SAT with 3.5 kid to go to Ivy leauge over an asian kid with higher score, higher GPA less money based on disadvatges her kid saw in life, then it maybe wrong with the system. I am not against poor URM having AA or questioning your kids hard work. I am just questioning why her kid has advatge over any asian kid with higher stats and lower income. I do support AA but modified way. But let me be clear I have no way to challenge AA. Since momdream is highly qualifid, I am asking her to prove to me that her kid has disadvatges and thus he should be given URM benefits.</p>

<p>Why is this all about "your" kid, or "her" kid? The colleges don't think that way. They could care less. Their job is to choose A CLASS (not individual kids, but a class) that serves their institutional mission. You may disagree with their institutional mission (which in some cases is indeed little but "face diversity"), in which case, why would you want to apply? (there are fine schools, such as Pomona, where face diversity isn't part of the picture, and others, like Harvard or Davidson, with tiny Pell Grant percentages, that this is heavily what AA is about. </p>

<p>You can choose. But why a school should care about what you think when it has its own institutional mission is entirely beyond me.</p>

<p>Sokkermom:</p>

<p>I did say that my kids should be admitted to a school based on his qualification. I do agree that hard work and grades are not related. But tell me that my kid has disadvatge over another asian kid who works harder and comes from a realtively poorer family is not right.</p>

<p>Chinaman,
Momsdream did not go to harvard nor Yale Law. you are mixing up posters.</p>

<p>mini:</p>

<p>With my limited skills I would ask you a simple question, If you make $100,000 and your kid scores less on the measuring sticks, then you claim that your kid has more disadvantage over a fellow kid whose parents earn $40,000 but have higher marks and have parents motivating the kid? It is not a question about Duke or other school. It is a question about atitude.</p>

<p>momsdream :</p>

<p>My sincere apologies for confusing with mixing you with someone. But my argument still stand for any URM kids whose parents who have gone to IVY or have an income more tha $150,000 that they should not be getting any legup. This will help us to provide go and support more kids from inner city whose potential needs to be harnessed. Anyone claiming that AA are inferior in intellegent are wrong, they posses same intellectual skills and curiocity like anyone else her. </p>

<p>We must honor organization like prep for prep to bring bright URM kids to prep school. We should cheer them. Hope IVY school sees that and give thise prep for prep URM kids a chance overa rich URM kid with equal GPA or Other variables.</p>