<p>Nope Chinaman...wasn't me. I didn't even go to college and had my son when I was a teenager. His dad has never been around and I raised him alone until I got married much, much later on. I did, however, manage to work hard enough to now earn a six firgure income. </p>
<p>So, that kind of makes things a little interesting, doesn't it? You see how judging by socio-economic status alone doesn't really make sense?</p>
<p>Chinaman,</p>
<p>You seem to be sending a mixed message.</p>
<p>You state</p>
<p>We must honor organization like prep for prep to bring bright URM kids to prep school. (Because no matter how you slice it your kid was a URM AA case in this situation, a smart one granted, but a URM just the same)</p>
<p>But you decry the whole AA process at the college level because Asain Americans are not seen as URMs at only a handful of universities in this country. However it has not stopped most asians from looking at the concept of Safety, Reach and Match schools the way that most whites and african americans do when their kids are looking at schools.</p>
<p>At some level it is not AA that is the problem, AA is just a scapegoat that is there to be used as some sort of justification. Maybe it is easier to swallow that your kid did not get in some place because you believe that some URM took their spot, than it is to come to the reality that your college selection criteria needs to extend beyond HYPMS and the other Ivy league schools.</p>
<p>Part of me beleives that be careful for what you ask for because you just might get it. With AA set of a catalyst of reaching toward international students , and programs such as Prep for Prep. and colleges reaching out to students from low income families. With the elimination of AA, how long do you think it will be before these other things will be eliminated as well. </p>
<p>In the 1960 with AA in education, Asians were the biggest benefactors as many flocked to berkley and the UC's in order to get free education. </p>
<p>Plato says </p>
<p>Never discourage anyone who continually makes progress no matter how slowly.</p>
<p>As people know better they begin to do better. You say yourself how you brought your family from China so that your kids can have a better life and have a chance at educational opportunites. How would you feel if that opportunity was no longer possible?</p>
<p>momsdream:</p>
<p>See that is why going to HYPSM by taking $160,000 loan is not wise. And since you make 6 figure income without going to school, you are probably more wiser than I have ever thought. </p>
<p>My request to you is to reach other kids and provide opportunity to kids once you met your obligation for your kids. My kid has recurited me to do volunteer work, they taught me the importance of diversity. I learned from my kids that the color of skin is useless, we are all same and want betterment of our kids. One of his best friend is AA and I tell you I love this kids for his integrity and honesty. Heck I am learning now new things from the diversity. "UNIty in diversity"</p>
<p>I am not sending mixed signals, all I am saying that in life poor URM needs to be given advatges. Not the rich URM who has once achived the amercian dream, they should be treated like any yellow, white kid. prep for prep only selct the poor URM, I have yet to see them selecting a rich URM and sending them and supporting them to prep school.</p>
<p>"See that is why going to HYPSM by taking $160,000 loan is not wise. "</p>
<p>Chinaman, I really don't understand this. Please explain.</p>
<p>Sybie:</p>
<p>My kid are in the process for applying, and I am not bitter as I think getting in a any college is a big luck of the draw too. Being a private place HYPSM has a right to choose womsoever they want, but I am just pointing out the fallacies of right and wrong URM admission practices.</p>
<p>I will rather go to a full paying school than take a loan for college and pay $40,000 for four years thus $160,000. One can make six figure money even when not have been to school. You are an example of it.</p>
<p>Chinaman, really...I don't want to argue and things like this have a tendency to get personal and heated. I've heard your argument and I don't think you can come close to moving me off of my position. I don't see your point on making money without having been to school. Are you suggesting that URMs should just not go to school? Maybe you're suggesting that URMs should just go to schools where their stats match the average white applicant because they'll earn money anyway ???</p>
<p>I am the exception, not the norm. Do you know how I got to this point? I got here because I always shot waaaaay over my targets. I went after jobs/positions that I really wasn't qualified for....and got them. It was tough because I was constantly trying to catch up with everyone else. Once I learned the job well enough to do it well, I would overshoot again for another job....and so on and so on. It was very stressful because I was never able to stop for a breath and I always had to prove myself. There were days early on where I wasn't making al ot of money and we were downright POOR. My son can still name the shadow puppets that I used to make with a flashlight to entertain him when our electricity would get shut off because we had no money. He spent long days at the sitter while I worked to get ahead. And very slowly I climbed....and climbed...and climbed. See what happens when you give someone a shot at something for which they might not be as qualified as others, but they really, really want?</p>
<p>It was just the two of us...so it was really hard. I didn't start making really decent money until about 5 yrs ago....and when my son first started HS we were taken in on Fin Aid, which has since been eliminated for us because my income has continued to rise each year since. </p>
<p>And not to be mean....but just as you asked me why my son couldn't get a 1600 on his SAT, after your own son was able to achieve such an accomplishement? I ask you why you're so poor when I was able to work my butt off and earn my way. </p>
<p>You see...you just can't judge people by one dimesnional criteria. You were ready to judge me as a rich mommy with a kid who had every advantage and had just been too lazy to achieve the 1600. When, in fact, the fact that I earn six figures gives a very skewed perspective of our background. </p>
<p>Had I sat around collecting welfare checks for the past 17 years, you'd be giving my son a pat on the back and congratulating him on his accomplishments in the face of being poor. Because I didn't, you don't think his accomplishments are good enough. That logic is just wrong.</p>
<p>Momsdream, I think you have totally misread what Chinaman is saying. First, he is addressing the question of whether affluent URMs who have attended excellent schools should be given preference in the college admissions process. I am a URM with mixed race children and this has been a major issue for discussion in my community. I benefited 25 years ago by AA, made the most of my opportunity and raised affluent private school kids. I have to agree with Chinaman, my children should not be seen in the same light as disadvantaged URMs. If a school feels they will bring diversity, fine, but for how many generations should we get special consideration? My children know that have had most every advantage their white and Asian peers have and really don't want to be a token at a school they can't compete for on the same level as the peers they grew up with and were educated with. They have 2 parents with ivy undergrad and grad degrees. Now your child seems to be somewhere inbetween. Although he attends a private school, he is first generation. He was not always affluent. Those factors should, and will, be considered.</p>
<p>As for Chinaman's comment about not borrowing $160K to attend an ivy, I think he's just stating what is becoming conventional wisdom. You can do equally well going to schools that will give you more money so you have to borrow less. He is saying that tenacity like your own can achieve a good income even without a degree.</p>
<p>Your last paragraph brings up an important point. You could have chosen to be on welfare, put your feet up and let your son have the full blown URM bonanza. Now if he webt to Yale and decided to put his feet up and not fully utilize his experience, should another generation of poor kids get an equal advantage?</p>
<p>"Your last paragraph brings up an important point. You could have chosen to be on welfare, put your feet up and let your son have the full blown URM bonanza. Now if he webt to Yale and decided to put his feet up and not fully utilize his experience, should another generation of poor kids get an equal advantage?"</p>
<p>I think it is probably not a good idea to look at individuals, but at systems in aggregate. In another post, you asked how long AA policies would be necessary in order to right historic wrongs. Actually, there are two kinds of research on this question. One is research on other "caste" societies, societies which are not simply stratified by income, but by race/ethnic/cultural experience. (There is a whole team of anthropologists/ethnographers at Berkeley that have been studying this question.) The answer? Three generations. But, they also note, usually not long after the first generation, there is widescale rebellion against the SUCCESS of AA-like policies, usually putting many of the gains on hold.</p>
<p>Dr. James Comer at Yale has also studied this question, in putting together a set of schools that deal with the cultural deficits which come with caste behavior associated with historical disadvantage. His answer? Three generations. But it would have to be three generations enfused throughout the entire society, in all grades of schools, and AA in institutions of higher education, over three generations. Since virtually no one is even considering bringing predominantly minority schools even up to the standards of white ones, no less accounting for past historical disadvantage, it really is a non-question, isn't it?</p>
<p>And it makes for interesting results, all across the socio-economic system. A study published in 2004 found that African-American HIV patients treated by white physicians received anti-retroviral medications on average four months later than if they had been treated by African-American physicians. There was no correlation between income level, years of education, or insurance coverage and when medications were prescribed. See King, W., et al, Does Racial Concordance Between African-American HIV Patients and Their Physicians Affect the Time of Receipt of Protease Inhibitors? Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2004. Dr. Devah Paige at Northwestern U. sent white and Black men with and without criminal records to job interviews, and found that white applicants with prison records were more likely to be hired than Black applicants without one. Researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT sent fictitious responses to want ads, with either "white-sounding" names (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or "Black-sounding names" (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones.) Resumes exactly the same. The white-sounding names were 50% more likely to be invited for an interview.</p>
<p>We have a long, long way to go. Most of the things wrong with Affirmative Action would be easily cured if there was a lot MORE of it (and over far longer periods of time, and starting with preschools.)</p>
<p>I could really get into some of these discussions except for my pesky work. Briefly Mini, the points you raise is just a case for being very selective in how we apply AA. In some cultures it may well take 3 generations to make substantive change. I think, however, that those in my generation witnessed extremely substantial growth in a single generation. Children of poverty, top education, become top professionals. I know many blacks and Latinos who have done just that and Chinaman's son is an example of major change in first generation Americans. You can get off a plane an impoverished non English speaker and be at Choate a few years later! Will Chinaman'e great grandchildren need help? I seriously doubt it. As for Emily v. Lakisha, first, it's well established that educated blacks are far less likely to bestow such names upon their children. So the arguement there is about education. I can tell you that at the top Law firms I have worked within, we bend over backwards to include well educated minorities. They have an advantage in our out of law school hiring. They need to make partner or their own steam, but they will get the chance. So 3 generations doesn't wash with me when we are talking about AA in education.</p>
<p>Forgive the typos, I'm in a hurry......</p>
<p>Full blown URM bonanza? Wow, that's some comment. Well, last time I checked, poor white students were getting Fin Aid as well. And really, are we talking about black kids getting in with the avergate black SAT score of 860 or whtever it is? NO. We're talking about the black kid with 1400s...of which only about 1,200 black kids score better, Nationally. Are you saying that you believe these kids put their feet up? My goodness....I don't think ANY kid who scores 1200 and above has had their feet up...black, white or purple. I think the whole argument is ridiculous. Why are we taking kids who are at the top of the applicant pool and pitting them against one another based on scores? Colleges don't decide this way, regardless of race. </p>
<p>I said it about twenty times and I'll say it again...
Collegs WANT blacks on campus....they like it....parents like it.....applicants like it. The only people who hav a problem with it are the people who think the black applicant might "steal" their spot, which wasn't their spot to begin with. Nobody has a spot. If you want ot continue to believe that the 1600 is a guarantee and that any other outcome means that a black kid took your spot, be my guest. That kind of attitude will get you left in th dust anyway....at many junctures in the future. </p>
<p>How many black kids are getting into HYPSM this year? Of those, how many needed a "tip" to get in? I bet "400" is a reach. </p>
<p>My problem is that hardly any kids inthe black community are applying to selective schools. When a very, very few do apply and have slightly lower stats that the average white or Asian applicant, we want to hold them back at the gate because they didn't measure up 100%. If every black applicant who applied was from a wealthy family and had a 1300 SAT, would it be okay to deny all of them and eliminate blacks on campus altogether? Seems like some here think that would be fine....</p>
<p>I guess it really doesn't matter....because colleges don't see it this way. </p>
<p>As far as my son's background...why do you think it will be considered? How will it be considered if the school doesn't know about it? They only ask for the last two year's tax returns. They don't ask how old I was when he was born. He won't get credit for most of his hardships. Frankly, it doesn't matter because he doesn't need it. </p>
<p>I still don't get the relevance of the $160k comment with regard to this topic. Are we talking about wealthy URMs? If so, why are we talking about the fact that one can go to school for free and still achieve a good income? So what. What's a good income worth? Are we really interested in educating our children or are we just sending them to school so that they can make money? As we discussed a few weeks ago, if you just want to make money, quit school now now and become a plumber.....or pick any number of other very lucrative careers where a degree isn't needed. As far as I'm concerned, that's not the point.</p>
<p>What are you looking at is the difference between "low-income" and "caste" distinctions (to use the ethnological distinctions.) Immigrants rarely came from caste backgrounds, as opposed to very poor ones. When they do (the Mien people in Fresno, the upland Hmong people in Minneapolis), they do every bit as poorly as African-Americans. (This could be a very long essay - but not now.)</p>
<p>In 1968, the drop out rate for whites in the U.S. was 4.5%; it is now 4.6%. For African Americans, it has come down from 10.1% to 5.7%. The percentage of African Americans who completed high school rose from 30.1% to 79.2%; the percentage of those completing college rose from 4.3% to 17.2%.</p>
<p>Yet, and this is the kicker, despite all the media hype about the Black middle class, in 1968, African American household income was 60% of white income; it is now 58%. In 1989, average white family wealth was 5 1/2 times African-American wealth; it is now 6 1/2 times. And from 2000-2003, income of African-American households FELL by 6.3% (white income grew, though very modestly.)</p>
<p>To deal with caste (not low-income, but the cultural manifestations of historic disadvantage) requires 3 generations. But not just a few folks here and there scattered among law schools and businesses. </p>
<p>AA would be a great idea. Be nice to see it actually tried beyond a little tokenism here and there.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>My children know that have had most every advantage their white and Asian peers have and really don't want to be a token at a school they can't compete for on the same level as the peers they grew up with and were educated with.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>EXACTLY. This is one of the points I was trying to make. It is insulting to be treated this way. This way of being patronized and used to boost institutions' diversity statistics is almost inescapable for members of certain groups in certain lines of work and enormous numbers of academic institutions.</p>
<p>I am brown. Son is brown because of me, until the husband's family reunion this past summer none of us knew much about the Swiss heritage. He is way above the average in academics and EC for his school. I doubt his URM status was a defining hook for him, more a plus for Redland's diversity. My hope is that when people see him and his brown skin they don't look just at the skin. I had hoped he would join a diversity mentor group-he refused. Son told me he didn't have any adversity and he didn't want extra help. I asked him to please reconsider, I told him that if he joined and was later a mentor maybe being brown wouldn't be UR anymore. I think we need to see more successful color in the commmunity. I can't count the times I have been told-"Oh, I didn't know your were Mexican American" (4th generation), " you don't seem/sound like it". The you don't seem like it being-you are educated. I do have hope. Things change. Just 20 yrs ago when I answered the phone at work the nurses and physicians always asked for the pharmacist. Only men were pharmacists then. Now there are probably more women than men.</p>
<p>"EXACTLY. This is one of the points I was trying to make. It is insulting to be treated this way. This way of being patronized and used to boost institutions' diversity statistics is almost inescapable for members of certain groups in certain lines of work and enormous numbers of academic institutions."</p>
<p>But you don't have to be. Nobody held a gun to your head to put your race (or any manifestation of it) on your application. Nobody forced you to apply if you felt like you were being used. Yes, you ARE being used - the Harvards of the world (James Conant in particular) decided that the education being offered to the upper crust would be inferior TO THEM if they didn't have you around. So they now admit about 6.8% of the student body from the bottom 35% of the U.S. population.) You help Harvard fulfill its mission - in exchange, they "borrow you" for four years.</p>
<p>If you feel insulted, you could walk away, couldn't you?</p>
<p>Black, white or purple, are you saying that many kids without an extreme hook with a 1200 SAT get into ivy league schools today? I hear something in the background of so may posts that seems to be sayings blacks perhaps have a genetic disadvantage where SATs are concerned. Sorry, but at the affluent private school my kids go to, a 1200 SAT is not an excellent score and does not make you competitive at a top college without a hook such as athlete or URM. Is a 1200 achieved by a disadvantaged public school kid impressive? Yes, white, black or purple.</p>
<p>I can't tell you how mnay times I (and other black co-workers) have been told things like "you're so smart and well spoken, you're not regular black people".....or how I've walked into a meeting and had someone try to lighten things up with me by calling me "homie" or making some other ridicuos comment. These people are college graduates. Wouldn't it have been nice if their colleges had enough talented blacks on campus to teach them that watching "Good Times" was not a good way to learn about how to associate with blacks (yes, this is what someone told me they did to try to learn about blacks)? </p>
<p>Do you want your child's college graduating people who go off into the workplace and make such fools of themselves? Thank goodness my son's college choices have realized the need.</p>
<p>kirmum-
That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that a 1200 is above the national average for everyone. If a school with an entering class of 2000 students accepts 50 black kids with a 1200-1300 score, do you really feel that it's an injustice to society? If only 1800 African Americans scores over 1300, would you be ok with denying admission to 50 1400 scoring AfAm students because there 50 better qualified (SAT score-wise) white or Asian applicants? </p>
<p>We're wallowing in minutia here....get me out!</p>
<p>I've never seen a post on CC that referenced a genetic problem with blacks and the SAT. What threads are you reading?</p>