<p>madeinusa- People only assume it because it happens so frequently, due to affirmative action and the idea that racial diversity is SO important in college. It's a race-based policy feeding race-based prejudices. "That racist mindset" is just a product of the environment, which emphasizes race.</p>
<p>Product of the enviornment? As in, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, etc. promote racism? Maybe I am reading this wrong. </p>
<p>(not being sarcastic, by the way).</p>
<p>Lyndon Baines Johnson:
"You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "You're free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."</p>
<p>First, on the issue of academics. The URMs that are admitted through affirmative action are NOT significantly below par. Sure, they might get in with slightly worse stats, but this doesn't reflect on their intelligence. If you can show me stats that state that URMs have significantly higher dropout rates (in college), then fine, there's an argument to be made against this. This isn't the case.
Second, on the issue of reverse racism. A lot of people talk about reworking affirmative action to benefit those who come from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. I will admit, this makes a certain amount of sense. It'd give advantages to those who'd need it, and in theory, it's hard to see counterarguments. If this were implemented though, it'd still have the effect of favoring URMs--they're the ones who are generally in poverty. That put aside, how would it affect others?
The rich would be hurt, of course, making the whole system an automatic equalizer, of sorts. It'd bring the people high up down, while bringing the people low down up. Any parallels to communism here?
I'm not trying to dispute the idea of affirmative action by economic situation, just it seems highly hypocritical at times. I doubt that many of the people arguing for an economic-based AA (vs. a race-based AA) would support it in actuality.</p>
<p>quirkily, nice quote first of all. i think your last point is particularly pointed (i apologize for the pun).......these people who so oppose racial AA would most likely not support economic AA either. i'm sure one of them will respond to this and attest that "i honestly would support economic AA," but I don't believe them. economic AA is still essentially racial AA, since the poor in this country are so disproportionately minority, so why would someone opposed to racial AA support the other?</p>
<p>the fact is, when you talk about AA on a site full of ambitious, college-obsessed white kids, the responses are fueled by what they perceive to be competition. they hate the idea of some black kid taking their spot at harvard. this fear is, of course, completely illogical, since the percentage of blacks at most colleges is still lower than the percentage of blacks in all of america. for all their cockiness, these kids (and i'm not singling out any one on this particular thread) are really insecure... they have to blame their predicted failures in the college admissions crapshoot on a few black kids getting admitted with lower SAT scores.</p>
<p>I want all yall to reaize something. im not against nor for AA. but here is something to think about
For most African American kids, It is sort of look down upon as being smart. Most other students talk about acting white or not being black b/c of taking so many higher level classes that are majority black. Thus there is a stigma in teh African AMerican race that being smart means acting white which means having less friends somethimes. There is that feeling in teh African American community to discourage being an intellectual.</p>
<p>hehehe. I'm sorry, but "MOST" is a word that entails a sweeping generalization. Perhaps you have attended every high school in the United States and witnessed the effects of a black student being educated, which as you said, would result in ostracizing. </p>
<p>Furthermore, you are in fact taking a stance on AA because your argument implies that black students do not seek education for fear of being taunted, making AA a just system of giving the ones who do a helping hand. </p>
<p>Also, there is no such stigma in the black community. You do realize that in calling an educated black person white, a black person would be demeaning their entire race? More black teenagers arent applying to top 25 colleges because they devalue a sound education. ;)</p>
<p>i dunno why, but marchballer seems much more credible on this than you. i've heard countless people make this point about "acting white." and i don't think marchballer's statement means he's for AA, it's just an observation that shows how difficult the road to college can be for minorities, while all of you pretend like it's a walk in the park and they don't work for it.</p>
<p>"Acting white"...oreo...heard it all before...</p>
<p>In what way does he seem more credible, made? and what exactly does "all of you" mean? I have not once specified my race, nor have I given my stance on AA.</p>
<p>i wasn't talking about you specifically amina, which i think should be understood since i said "all of you." and i certainly wasn't talking about your race.</p>
<p>Just clarifying, since it would seem only plausible that you were addressing me. I didn't mean to come off as being overly defensive, if I did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Acting white"...oreo...heard it all before...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know how you feel!</p>
<p>bump since I see a new URM chances thread</p>
<p>Hey I am black and everybody calls me white for being smart. The black guys like you white always with them. White people say you white like us face it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
amina said:
Product of the enviornment? As in, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, etc. promote racism? Maybe I am reading this wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I meant everyone in the US. Our entire country. The way we are raised, our parents, our teachers, television shows-- too much of it emphasizes racial differences. Not just the colleges. Then affirmative action comes along and we can see it as a program that lowers the standards for URMs because we're taught that there are differences between the achievements of white people vs. the achievements of black (or hispanic, or even asian) people. </p>
<p>I only had four hours of sleep this morning, so if I'm not very coherent, I'm sorry.</p>
<p>Affirmative action, even outside the socioeconomic spectrum, is a good thing. No one seems to complain about the extra push that girls get at Caltech, and people seem to agree that having a mix of boys and girls at a university is a good thing. Why should any other form of diversity any different?</p>
<p>As a Caucasian attending a primarily Caucasian school, I am excited to be a part of a more diverse population. Education at the elites is as much about learning from your peers as it is from your professors. I hardly think attending a predominantly White and Asian school is going to help people grow much - I am excited to attend a school where whites are less than half of the population (Stanford). While Palo Alto might not quite be the "real world," at least we can experience it in part through the cultural experiences of those around us. </p>
<p>And lastly, affirmative action is not denying you your place in that dream school of yours. For example, Harvard had I believe 23,000 applicants. Of the 2,000 or so admitted, perhaps 600-700 of these were "URM" admits (Hispanic, Black, Native American). So, assuming that all URM admits are qualified yet not quite deserving - which would be absolutely ridiculous - only 600-700 of the 21,000 rejected applicants would be affected. In other words, there is at most a 3% chance that you personally would be affected by affirmative action. The vast majority of "super applicants" (the GPA and SAT phenoms) that are rejected would still be rejected even if AA were not an issue. Just because so-and-so minority applicant got in with a 2000 SAT doesn't mean that you would have a chance in hell even in spite of your earth-shattering 2200, 2300, or even 2400.</p>
<p>If we look at this econonomically, a maximum of 600 students (those rejected whose spots were taken by URMs) are hurt by Affirmative Action. We can argue that these 600 - which were clearly borderline cases - aren't really hurt much at all as they are likely to be accepted to Harvard's peers, such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT (anyone in at these schools ought not to complain). On the other hand, Harvard's class of 1400 or so non-URMs all benefit from this sense of diversity that is not only enriching but preparation for the real world. </p>
<p>There are clear advantages to affirmative action that people are too ignorant to consider. To be honest, if affirmative action means I would have to go to another Ivy (oh my god, the horror!) instead of Harvard because of affirmative action, so be it. I would much rather go to a diverse Dartmouth than an all Caucasian/Asian Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am excited to be a part of a more diverse population. Education at the elites is as much about learning from your peers as it is from your professors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. You have good points.</p>
<p>Also, isn't AA put into place at top-notch colleges with the mindset that all of the students who have been accepted are all qualified students, and thus AA encourages a sense of diversity after the fact.</p>
<p>Look at the average incomes for races and you'll understand AA for African-Americans, the effects of bondage and segregation are still actually being felt AA is a noble pursuit that should be continued</p>
<p>Great post, Stambliark. At max, AA affects a negligible portion of those rejected, I never thought of that. I also never considered the lack of complaints about female admission to schools like MIT.</p>
<p>When the demographics that are being aimed for by the school don't match the demographics of the applicant pool, certain groups are favored and certain groups are shafted. I don't think it's anyone's fault, just the system's.</p>