<p>Mini, as you can see from my post, my personal experience has to do with sex-based affirmative action. I have been required to put my name down on every single application I have filled out in my life, and it leaves no room for doubt about my sex. Very rarely is it optional to indicate your sex explicitly. Similarly, as somebody else mentioned, any college knows that it's a good bet that LaKeisha or Jamal is a black applicant. If they have any doubt, well, that doubt is removed when we are interviewed. No, I was not interviewed for college or graduate school, but I have never gotten a job without an interview. Where do you suggest I walk away to where I can be treated with some dignity? It's nice that some of the top universities think that minorities can help their other students to become educated, but I think it's wrong of them to use young and naive students for this purpose in situations where that puts them at great risk of ending up at a school where they will be overwhelmed and they are likely to be hurt rather than helped. URMs are people, too, not just statistics.</p>
<p>And I forgot to mention that when I applied to graduate school one of the places where I applied sent me a REQUIRED form asking for my race. They would not consider my application until I filled it out and sent it back.</p>
<p>Well, firstly, as noted, I think AA should start with pre-school. As in funding for minority school children. Currently the funding gap simply for minority school districts is figured at $1,030 per student (Education Trust, 2003). This is lower than it has been at points in the past. But using the 3 generation time-frame, just to equal things out, spending for every minority student (including inflation) would have to be approximately $75,000 higher than that for white students for the next 60 years. This wouldn't be AA - this would be just to equalize things. This would tell us, three generations from now whether equal treatment worked - not AA, mind you, equal treatment. Until then, AA is a terrific idea. You would hardly have even the semblance of a Black middle class without it, and the reality is, it works! But it would work a lot better if there was a lot more of it, so that the cultural manifestations of historic disadvantage (that which is associated with caste position, not just income) could be dealt with effectively.</p>
<p>You make a great point about women. AA for women has been more consistent (and in much great numbers), but is really only 35 or so years old. And so, as is predictably the case, women haven't caught up in management, in some of the professions, in income distribution, but, as also predicted in studies on caste, there is a backlash after the first generation. (In India, studies of certain segments of "dalit" society that have made it through AA then work with the enemies of AA to try to shut the doors on their compatriots. Fascinating work.) </p>
<p>The link I included also dealt with interview situations (the prison vs. non-prison record). You see the results.</p>
<p>The arguement here has become apples and oranges. I couldn't agree more Mini that AA needs to happen in a big way in venues far before college is reached for disadvantaged minorities. I'm doing a pro bono case now that addresses inequities in a large school district. My point is that AA has become a crock at many highly selective universities. Many of the programs are benefiting the few black 1400 plus scorers, mostly affluent children of educated folks.</p>
<p>It is interesting to notice: why doesn't the media ever concentrate on the qualified Caucasian kids who are in the bottom 10% of their law programs?</p>
<p>In short, I believe that information can be very oppressive. Our knowledge is SHAPED daily by those who are in power and have control of this information. Just wanted to put that out there.</p>
<p>One other thing, though I know that these might not necessarily related to the issue: when they said "students put at an advantage by AA" did they JUST mean black people? Because in fact, it is white women who are helped the most by affirmative action. AA does not only encompass the color of your skin. Many people who don't stand out who are benefiting from AA are escaping the microscope as well.</p>
<p>"My point is that AA has become a crock at many highly selective universities. Many of the programs are benefiting the few black 1400 plus scorers, mostly affluent children of educated folks."</p>
<p>Statistically, there is no question that this is true - there are many, many more minorities than the 6.8% of Pell Grant recipients at Harvard (or the 9.7% at Williams), and this includes the white low-income folks. But I doubt that has ever been different. </p>
<p>Harvard (not to single them out) could CHOOSE to admit other, needier minority students, and the available evidence suggests that, with the proper supports in place, they would do quite well. There are schools that have proven this is the case - including Amherst, Smith, and Occidental. They choose not to.</p>
<p>AA needs to happen in a big way - everywhere! -- from pre-school to law firm in order for it to work most effectively, and it has to happen for 3 generations. I'm not holding my breath.</p>
<p>Chinaman, if your son goes to a major prep school, it most certainly has a "College Book" where it lists the profiles of every student who applied to every college in the last several years. You can then see clearly who got in where with URM, legacy, athlete, development, celebrity tags, and who got in with performing arts, need, sex (male or female) tips. When you strip all of the tag factors from the acceptance pool to HPY, you generally end up with a very small number of kids. </p>
<p>A few of my findings from a variety of records including my own: URMs do get a preference, but I do not see any URMs with low gpas and high SAT scores getting into the top schools. In fact my son's good friend is not only in the URM category, he is a definite hardship case. His life story would bring tears to any parent's eyes. He is basically homeless, and the school and a group of parents have been providing a base for him until he gets into college. His SATs are in the 1300s, his course load very tough,great ECs, great personality, no money, much hardship during his years of highschool, probably the toughest I have seen personally. He will need a full ride to get through college. He is applying to some reach schools, but not the HPY & co crowd, and even the lower ivy is a reach for him in the opinion of college counseling and they do have a handle on how URMs and hardship cases fare in elite college admissions as the school has a very active outreach program with a number of underpriviliged URMs in it. And the statistics speak for themselves. A kid in that situation with grades in the 2nd quintile might have a shot at the top schools but not someone in the lower third of the class. Class rank counts heavily for URMs in the top schools. The SAT may be underplayed but in all of the data I have from school in the midatlantic, northeast and midwest (PA and OH) consistentlly show this. I am not saying that there is not a chance, but I do not see many instances of this happening. Curiously enough, the category where such grades are forgiven is the very talented athlete. I have seen many recruited athletes with not only low SATs but in the lower end of the class (in one case at the bottom of the class) get into HPY and easily into the other ivies, little ivies and other selective schools. And I am not talking about Duke's basketball team either! I personally know a number of these kids and they are playing on the ivy teams right now. They were hot during admissions, I remember with many schools begging to commit to them if they would make a commitment. Now this is a whole different category from someone who is good enough to make the team; I am talking about major impact players. Player who are very, very good. And those coaches were not off in their judgement as every single one of those kids that I can identify are top players in their sport at the school. There was a thread on this forum a while ago that asked what the most valuable single "hook" or attribute is for elite college admissions, and I would have to say that a top athlete, not a good athlete, but one at the top of his game, would have his academic deficiencies most forgiven, way over the disadvantaged, hardship URM, way over the developement, celebrity, legacy (though I would put that next but without as much documentation). There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of disadvantage hardship URMs running around out there that are in NO college much less a top level one. Throw athletic prowress into the picture,demonstrated in a desirable sport, and that kid will find a school somewhere that will give him a full ride plus.</p>
<p>Chinaman, your feelings about a well to do, advantaged URM getting consideration for admissions is really the crux of controversy in the elite colleges policies for admitting certain minorities. The reason this advantage is given is not for the altruistic reasons that you state in wishing advantages for disadvantaged kids. The reason is that the colleges want URMs in their community. A lot of what is happening, what has happened in this country involves situations with URMs. Not much of a discussion to have if the URMs are not there to discuss, as well. Thedad put this whole situation in a very succint statement in a post about Asians not to long ago. And frankly I think it is more important to have the URMs in such forums than a bunch of athletes some of whom have very little academic life in them as their academic profiles clearly show.</p>
<p>I love Jamimom!!</p>
<p>Let me preface with this disclaimer - I am strongly, strongly against affirmative action as it works now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But using the 3 generation time-frame, just to equal things out, spending for every minority student (including inflation) would have to be approximately $75,000 higher than that for white students for the next 60 years.
[/quote]
Personally, I think this would divide society more. I don't know any white student that wouldn't resent all this money being lavished on black students - money that would eventually be paid out of their pocket; money that they worked extremely hard for and deserve to use to fund THEIR children's education, not some child they have never met who gets it merely because of the pigment of their skin. If ever a program like this was instated, I would venture that many whites would adopt a negative attitude towards blacks. I know I would - why should this group get such an advantage? I feel that my generation (high school senior this year) is so accepting of other races; why undo this mindset?</p>
<p>If race really doesn't matter (as the prevalent politically correct attitudes reiterate over and over), then why should it get any consideration, both in terms of college admissions or pre-school programs? Why not run AA economically based (if AA is really necessary at all - Social Darwinism all the way is my true opinion on this issue), so poor students of all races benefit? You can't tell me a poor white student who lives in a blighted area doesn't deserve help while the wealthy black students attending my school who have had all the advantages in the world should get an extra leg up into the Ivy of their choice.</p>
<p>The government funds too many programs as is. $75,000 more per URM student seems like a complete waste, and an unfair one at that. My ancestors weren't even in the country until the end of the 19th century - why should their tax dollars be held accountable for slavery that occured 50 years earlier?</p>
<p>Graci, Mini and I do not agree on a lot of his ideas, but he is so absolutely right when he states that the colleges really do not care about the poor disadvantaged kids. Just drive through some poor neighborhoods and look at all of those kids standing around, and you can see that there is plenty of material there. Most of the "poor" kids who end up at college, in fact nearly every one of them, are cleaned up and educated by someone else. Not the college. they would not be in the college otherwise. And alot of those Pell grant kids who are in the selective schools are not deprived culturally or academically. Many are kids who are from educated families that just do not make much money. Many Asian families who live crammed in small apartments working menial jobs lavish what time and money they have on the soul goal of sending a child to a top school. So those kids, though from "poor" background are often quite "rich" in academic preparation. I work in a school in a truly poor area, and the kids, all URMs are not college material in the least, and colleges do not want them. </p>
<p>And of course race matters in a lot of things. If you flip through a college catalogue, you will find many courses and seminars and discussions that involve race in this country and elsewhere. Not too cool to have all Asian and caucasian students discussing the plight of the American Indian , African American, Hispanic, is it? And many of these kids who are URM but are raised in predominantly white cultures, need to be apprised of the concerns of the URM in society and understand that "they are them". Colleges want so many athletes, so many classics majors, so many females, so many males, so many legacies, so many international students and so many URMs. That is why these categories at any given time get a leg up in admissions at any given school.</p>
<p>gracilisae, you are my vote for most likely to run your campus right wing party next year. Not a slam, I enjoy kids who know their stance and speak it. You are probably too young to have really wirnessed the hardships of many groups in our Country, although heaven knows prejudice is still encountered daily. My own children are still shocked when they come up against an incident when they realize they are being treated differently because of their skin color. I dare say everyone who is not a white anglo saxon male has probably encountered prejudice. And our Country needs to address this. The real question is how. Blacks, Latinos, Asians-people of color who look different have all suffered. Catholics and those of so many religions, too. How do we help people of any color climb out of poverty? How do we change cultural thinking and attitudes that aren't working generation after generation? Hopefully your generation has some better answers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most of the "poor" kids who end up at college, in fact nearly every one of them, are cleaned up and educated by someone else.
[/quote]
I just don't feel that their education should come on my dollar when I enter the work force, I want my pay to finance my life and that of my family, and not have it snatched from me to fund someone else who may/may not make anything of themselves regardless of how much money the government steals from me and throws upon them. I have nothing against these students as a group.</p>
<p>I don't mean to be rude, and by no means am I racist (while I don't think anyone on this board would accuse me of this, these sorts of political discussions sometimes lead to such unspoken conculsions)- I have good friends that are black, white, Indian (of India) - despite living in a whitewashed area where it is too easy to go through one's entire high school career without even making an acquaintance of a minority student. </p>
<p>Jamimom and kirmum, I really respect that you were so polite the one thing I cant stand is people of either political leaning refusing to listen and discuss with someone of the opposite view. Too many times the conservatives at my school get bashed by liberals that claim to be open-minded (this of course goes the other way as well); this is one reason why I frequent this forum despite being a teenager discussions are so open here. Thanks for letting me participate, everyone.</p>
<p>And kirmum, Im definitely excited to get involved in the right-wing group at whatever college I end up at next year . Youve pegged me.</p>
<p>Gracilisae, I do have some bad news for you. You will spend a lot of your adult life being angry at where your tax dollars go. When you enter the workforce, no matter what administration is in power, you will scratch your head and wonder how your tax dollars can possibly go the places they go. May I suggest right now that you avoid California and New York at all costs? Get behind effective ways to redress injustice and keep speaking your mind!</p>
<p>I understand exactly how you feel and you have very good reasons for feeling that way. The whole situation of URMS has really heated up a lot of people. I happen to agree with the colleges, but I do dislike the situation the way it is also. It is difficult to defend as are many policies. But as I stated in a post once before, if I should suddenly be put totally in charge of HPY admissions, and started to put together a college community, I would find it untenable to not have a group of people in this country that are at the crux of a lot of issues. And when you are trying to build something, you often have to make allowances. When Vassar went coed, it took many males, way under the female standards. Now the differential is not so wide. Still there ,but the gap has narrowed. </p>
<p>And the education of all children are going to be on your dollar, one way or the other. I believe what you are saying is that you don't want it to be anywhere near something near and dear to you. It's easy to give up something you don't need or want, but when society or any organization starts infringing on something that you hold close to you, it becomes a different story, regardless of how it benefits everyone as a whole.</p>
<p>I live in an area that was integrated 25 years ago and is considered a success story, because the "test scores" and every other measurable thing went up overall. It does not take into account the pain and loss of some families and students who would have done better had things stayed the same. My husband's family had settled here at that time with their brood after carefully researching schools and decided that this was the best bet for their situation. After they sank everything they owned and could borrow in home and business here, they opened up the city borders and integrated the schools through bussing. During those turbulent years, my H's cousins had a rough time education wise. They did not do well in those classes where they were the white kids that were needy. The focus was on the poor black kids being bussed in from the city. The reason the family had picked this district is that they felt that all of the good students as peers would up the standards for their kids. And their idea was sound. That is partly why my kids are in private schools. So although the bussing was an overall success, there were kids who would have been much better off had it not been done. And the family feels very bitter to this day about it. It does not make them feel one iota better that they contributed to the betterment of society. They did not want it on their time and on their dime. Most of us feel that way when it come right down to ourselves and our children.</p>
<p>"The government funds too many programs as is. $75,000 more per URM student seems like a complete waste, and an unfair one at that. My ancestors weren't even in the country until the end of the 19th century - why should their tax dollars be held accountable for slavery that occured 50 years earlier?"</p>
<p>Who's talking about slavery? I'm talking about the last 60 years. Including your entire lifetime.</p>
<p>Don't much like equal treatment, eh? (It's okay if the government wasted it for the past 60 years on you, I'm sure.)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>You would hardly have even the semblance of a Black middle class without it, and the reality is, it works! </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I no longer have much of an opinion on Affirmative Action, which many would view as a positive step on my evolutionary journey! </p>
<p>However, I do question your statements above. I believe that there was vibrant black middle class in many US cities not only before Affirmative Action, but before Brown vs. Board. There are those, including at least one Supreme Court Justice, who argue that the black middle class would be stronger without three decades of affirmative action. I don't know.</p>
<p>I also don't know whether I agree about "it works!" because I don't know what "it works" means. For example, Affirmative Action has not really increased the black enrollment at elite colleges over the last 20 years. </p>
<p>About the only part of "it works" I am sure about is that "it works" to provide a more racially diverse environment for white upper class kids at elite universities -- a benefit the fore-mentioned Supreme Court Justice refers to as "racial aesthetics". On a personal level, I'm in favor of racial aesthetics, so I guess "it works" for me.</p>
<p>I don't know if "it works" for the kids the upper class elite college grads who run affirmative action programs think they are "helping". I imagine "it works" for some; not for others.</p>
<p>To be perfectly honest, I've decided that, as an old white bald elite college grad, I am in no position to possibly know if "it works".</p>
<p>Momsdream wrote: "Collegs WANT blacks on campus....they like it....parents like it.....applicants like it."</p>
<p>I think this is the crux of the issue. Colleges need diversity -- racial, economic, religious, talent, what else is out there? They need diversity because 1) it makes the atmosphere more interesting 2) it represents American society 3) it encourages tolerance and understanding 4) it's fun. Now there are just so many URMs and poor kids (I was going to write financially disadvantaged but recovered my sanity) out there with the grades and scores and social skills that would allow them to get into the top schools. Or that have an interest in most LACs. These kids are in high demand, and if the colleges -- particularly the LACs -- only relied on the cream of the academic crop to up their diversity percentages, they'd never get close to where they want to be. Hence, AA. It's not fair, it's not equitable, it's not perfect, but it's the right thing to do. </p>
<p>I'm convinced that AA is good for the colleges, good for the white middle class kids. Is it good for the people it's helping? Sorry, I can't figure out any circumstances that it wouldn't be. Possibly an unprepared kid could get in over his head, but I think the colleges, especially the LACs, have mechanisms to make sure that once in, students stay in. Possibly a URM could feel out of sync in the snowy wastes of the Berkshires, but again, especially at LACs and back to the original premise, kids want to be welcoming and supportive of diversity. I see it as a win/win situation.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I'm convinced that AA is good for the colleges, good for the white middle class kids. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm convinced that AA benefits white middle class kids.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Is it good for the people it's helping? Sorry, I can't figure out any circumstances that it wouldn't be. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>There are those who argue that decades of AA, as part of a larger "entitlement" mentality, has been stigmatizing to the community it seeks to help. Does it foster a sense that, "I can't be successful without somebody helping me?" Does it undermine the value placed on personal achievement by the community?</p>
<p>As an old, white, bald guy, I have come to the conclusion that I can't possibly know whether there is any validity to those arguments. I do think it is worth considering. I also think these kinds of issues were at the core of Bill Cosby's recent rants.</p>
<p>Philosophically (and constutionally), I'm not comfortable with any race-based selection process. To me, race-based college admissions to further the social agenda of an Ivy-League educated elite college president is conceptually a little too close to race-based college admissions to further the social agenda of the Chancellor of the University of Alabama under George Wallace. The slope is a little too slippery for my constitutional tastes. Who is the arbiter of "social agendas"? This year, the arbiter is Sandra Day O'Connor. Who will it be next year? I would prefer not to leave to chance or political fashion with a simple, iron-clad prohibition on race-based "discrimination/affirmation".</p>
<p>Interestedad, none of us are comfortable with any race based selection process. Therein lies the big problem with the URM category in elite school admissions. </p>
<p>I want to tell all of you who have been posting here that this is the most civilized discussion of the matter I have seen. Whether you agree with the way URMs are treated in the admissions college or not, you can see the reasoning for it. Even those who are vehemently agains the status quo, need to understand the situation if they are going to effect any change in the matter. I have seen brilliant but angry people come up with very good arguments about the situation that miss the entire point.</p>