<p>this probably sounds like a ridiculous question, but could you explain what affirmative action is? By reading this discussion, i've gathered that low-income/ minority sutdents get preference from admissions officers, but does this apply to white students as well?
IMO, I dont find it fair that a URM with affluent parents (especially ivy legacies) should be an automatic shoo-in. Why should a student with this status get accepted over an equally, or even more able white/asian applicant who has made the most of the opportunities presented to them? It's times like these I wish my parents were from Peru or something.</p>
<p>forgot to mention that I assume the "white/asian applicant" comes from a low-income, disadvantaged household/school.</p>
<p>look up "affirmative action" on the internet</p>
<p>I was flipping through channels last night and on AMC or some station that shows old movies, there was a movie showcasing Native Americans. What was funny was that the "Indians" were so OBVIOUSLY Caucasian actors with brown make-up smeared on their faces, with white patches showing through. </p>
<p>I think this country has come a long way as far as diversity goes, and I much prefer a diverse school to one dominated by one ethnicity. On the other hand, I agree that forcing diversity is a bad idea. </p>
<p>My grandfather's Mongolian, and I have yet to meet anybody else my age who is a quarter Mongolian (the closest is a friend who is an eighth), but I don't think that would help my status as a URM, whereas I've heard of people who are 1/16th Native American and are considered a URM. Just curious, how do they determine how far back your lineage can go for you to be deemed a URM?</p>
<p>lol @ the AMC movie. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this country has come a long way as far as diversity goes, and I much prefer a diverse school to one dominated by one ethnicity. On the other hand, I agree that forcing diversity is a bad idea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's another reason why colleges want to recruit minorities. a lot of people are turned off at seeing a homogenous student body. just like you might be turned off by attending howard university, qualified minorities are often turned off by overwhelmingly white schools. </p>
<p>it's just like Mongolia. to my knowledge, there's never really been a significant influx of Mongolian immigrants into the USA, so significant Mongolian communities (Little Mongolia, NYC?) have not been established. this is most likely a turnoff to Mongolian emigrants. </p>
<p>about the URM lineage, i have no idea. there has to be some type of standard that they use for them to be able to have racial statistics on their websites. perhaps it's >50% for the more common races, but lower for native americans because they are native americans. then, people without a solid 51% or over would go under "other." i wouldn't be surprised if colleges skewed this and had biracial people under single races and <50% URMs under URM</p>
<p>As a sidenote, forcible mixing of races often causes students to self-segregate. I think people need to be appropriately matched with colleges based on ability - rather than by the presence of such "fringe factors" as color of skin.</p>
<p>I know someone who got into a very highly selective program at an Ivy League university by claiming he was Native American. No one could prove what he said was true, and then again, no one couldn't prove what he said wasn't true. I seriously doubt his lineage, and I think even if it did exist, at this point, the percentage is so insignificant that it doesn't even matter. He's just as white as any other white person I saw, and he's just as wealthy as any other rich person I know, so therefore, I think affirmative action in his case was unjustified.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Equality of results proves to be inequality of opportunity. Left to themselves, people won't invariably distribute themselves as expected. In order for equality of opportunity to naturally manifest as equal results, you have to assume that everyone also has equal capability and equal desires. But that's observably not true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are, for instance, precious few Mexican-Americans playing in the NBA. Basketball, by its nature, is a sport for men who are very tall, and Mexican-Americans average much shorter then the median. Professional Basketball is disproportionately made up of blacks and whites, because for historical genetic reasons the majority of men who are extremely tall come from those groups. Should the Lakers be required to keep two Mexican Americans on their team at all time, and cut the number of blacks among their stars?</p>
<p>The NBA is meritocratic; those who play do so because they're good. There are fifty times as many people who'd like to play in the big leagues as there are positions to fill, and they select only the best, based pretty much solely on capability (and to a lesser extent on the rapaciousness of the demands by their agents).</p>
<p>Likewise, basketball is far more popular among young American blacks than it is among Mexican Americans, and young blacks spend far more time practicing it. There's much more opportunity for them to learn the game, and for those few who are also extremely talented to express that talent. And like almost anything else, skill improves with practice.</p>
<p>The disproportionately high representation of blacks in basketball is caused by differences in capability and differences in desire among blacks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>source used for quotes: <a href="http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Equalityofopportunity.shtml">http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Equalityofopportunity.shtml</a></em></p>
<p>Now, let's consider this another way. You would want your family doctor or defense lawyer to be the best one you could get, right? Now say this doctor or lawyer was an underrepresented minority, but had significantly lower qualifications for the medical or law school they went to. Therefore, their degree from Duke, or Yale, or wherever, is not a valid reflection of ability. Do you want this person taking care of your children, or defending you in of a court of law? I think not.</p>
<p>I really believe affirmative action was good when discrimination was rampant. It was necessary to ensure equality of opporunity. Dr. Martin Luther King said he had a dream of a world in which his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the "content of their character." In other words, he wanted them to be judged by their merits.</p>
<p>No matter which way you slice it, if competitive recruitment and hiring processes aren't color blind, you're discriminating against someone.</p>
<p>If you want to be free from discrimination, you also have to be willing to allow other people equal rights, which means the absence preferential treatment based on race. </p>
<p>Imagine if I told you that the "standard facilities" in the segregated South were labeled "Colored", but if you were white, you could get "preferential treatment", and get "improved accomodations." Think of the "standard facilities" as where someone would go without a racial advantage, and think of the "improved accomodations" as where someone would go with a racial advantage. It's a completely arbitrary distinction that ends up making a big difference.</p>
<p>If you don't want racial advantages to work against you, you shouldn't let racial advantages work for you. </p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a sidenote, forcible mixing of races often causes students to self-segregate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and if you put white students in a school with varying economic status, they will also self-segregate. your point?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Therefore, their degree from Duke, or Yale, or wherever, is not a valid reflection of ability.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well, a Duke or Yale degree is a Duke or Yale degree. they might've been given a leg up (deserved or undeserved), but you can't invalidate their degree just because it was easier for them to be admitted to the school. sure, anyone could be ADMITTED to Harvard University, but only qualified students are going to be able to earn a Harvard Law School degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you want this person taking care of your children, or defending you in of a court of law?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>what kind of people? are you talking about people who have been admitted to prestigious schools with lower than average academic credentials? well, apparently, you are a Bush supporter, so you advocate a legacy(arbitrary, right?)-recruitment beneficiary to lead the free world, but not to defend you in a court of law? he is proof that academics are the sole judge of "qualification."</p>
<p>you argue so fervently for the abolishment of arbitrary recruitment, but still refuse to condemn legacy recruitment and every other type of birthright. it still baffles me. please explain once more?</p>
<p>Let's get this straight. I don't LIKE legacies or "birthright" offerings. But really, there are other factors at work there. For example, if a Senator's son goes to Yale, it brings Yale a lot of positive publicity. When Anne Carter went to Brown, all of a sudden, more people knew about Brown's curriculum (or lack thereof). When the son of a Disney CEO went to Dartmouth, the college got a lot of good, free publicity. Legacies bring additional financial support to the institution. Legacy students and parents are statistically very dependable donors. The college doesn't mind admitting a small number of kids that may be just a bit inferior if it means the entire school gets a new research facility.</p>
<p>While I don't think that is very fair at all, I think affirmative action is especially odious, because there really is nothing fundamentally different about the two students than their skin color. Civil rights leaders called for the end of discrimination based on skin color based on that principle. If that principle is really true, then preferential treatment based on skin color should be null and void.</p>
<p>
[quote]
well, a Duke or Yale degree is a Duke or Yale degree. they might've been given a leg up (deserved or undeserved), but you can't invalidate their degree just because it was easier for them to be admitted to the school. sure, anyone could be ADMITTED to Harvard University, but only qualified students are going to be able to earn a Harvard Law School degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's very easy to pass in many of these schools once you've gotten in. Harvard Law, for example, is graded on a strong B curve, and very, very few people fail any courses. That being said, if you don't ask for your lawyer (who just happens to be a URM) for his GPA, and his academic credentials are really below-par, you won't know that you could be doing much better in terms of service from different people graduating from the same school. Once you're in, it's not that hard to earn the degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really believe affirmative action was good when discrimination was rampant. It was necessary to ensure equality of opporunity. Dr. Martin Luther King said he had a dream of a world in which his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the "content of their character." In other words, he wanted them to be judged by their merits.</p>
<p>No matter which way you slice it, if competitive recruitment and hiring processes aren't color blind, you're discriminating against someone.</p>
<p>If you want to be free from discrimination, you also have to be willing to allow other people equal rights, which means the absence preferential treatment based on race.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Affirmative action is reverse discrimination. If one would support race discrimination against other people, it's only fair that one have to accept race discrimination against oneself as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Imagine if I told you that the "standard facilities" in the segregated South were labeled "Colored", but if you were white, you could get "preferential treatment", and get "improved accomodations." Think of the "standard facilities" as where someone would go without a racial advantage, and think of the "improved accomodations" as where someone would go with a racial advantage. It's a completely arbitrary distinction that ends up making a big difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hypothetically, if my parents $500,000 a year, and if your parents $20,000 a year, I can probably get a Lexus, while a Lexus might be outside of your means. If we were to accept the "equality of results" rationale, which is what affirmative action advocates, that would mean you should have a Lexus too. However, in the scenario, you wouldn't be able to have one. Also, everyone does not have a Lexus. </p>
<p>However, we can both go to a public school, and if you achieve great things, you can get scholarships and financial aid to go to an outstanding college. Then, you can earn half a million a year, or even more, and have three Lexuses. That's what equality of opportunity means.</p>
<p>No one has the opportunity to change their race. No matter how hard I try, I can't make myself African American. Similarly, no matter how hard you try, you can't make yourself Caucasian. We CAN change our economic circumstances later in life through equality of opportunity. </p>
<p>If you achieve more significantly than I do, you should absolutely get into any college before me. But if you don't achieve, you shouldn't get in over me because of race. If we try to artificially create equality of results via affirmative action, that only ensures that more discrimination occurs. Equality of results equates to inequality of opportunity, and equality of opportunity is what our country looks for.</p>
<p>Joey</p>
<p>i agree with legacy becuase it's true. like personally when we had students that could afford to donate ten, twenty grand to an event.. lets just say qualifying is no longer an issue.</p>
<p>fair enough, and if you can tolerate certain recruitment arbitrary to academics , then you have to agree with everything arbitrary to avoid being hypocritical is what i'm saying. once you get into "certain" territory, it becomes a matter of subjectivity in what kind of students that the school "needs." look at NYU and sports..they dont have any focus on it at all, while yale is going to be looking extra hard for good football players this year <em>cough</em> yale sucks <em>cough.</em> </p>
<p>so who are you to say who a college needs? you have to be for or against all abitrary recruiting, IMO.</p>