Maybe Yale Does Not Practice Affirmative Action

Colleges and Universities A-Z Yale University
81

<p><333333333333</p>

<p>k alsooooo. Correction drbigboyjoe:</p>

<p>
[quote]
People, however, are still going to blame it on you being a URM.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>collegehopefull is not a URM, but he is a minority (meaning that he's an ORM). </p>

<p>Now, I must preface this by saying that I'm not trying to attack you in any way collegehopefull, please please please know this. I really am just trying to stay objective and to have an honest debate.</p>

<p>kkkk soooo:</p>

<p>I think that people that hold views similar to yours collegehopez are, as I previously said, projecting very selfish mentalities. You think that you're "more qualified" than all of these black or hispanic or Native American people who get in to these top schools simply because you have a 2240 on the SAT and a few SAT2s higher than 700. You think that your more deserving than these people and therefore you should get in over them. This is what I don't understand. How can anyone justly argue that some people are less deserving of admission when there are SO many subjective factors beyond SAT scores and financial situation that can influence whether or not one gets into a college? (I am honestly asking you this question collegehopefull. Please clear things up for me if I've misinterpreted your point of view.)</p>

82

<p>^ I meant it more general, though. I wasn't specifically talking about collegehopefull. I probs shouldn't have used URM though, since I don't like that phrase.</p>

<p>But, I think you are misreading what collegehopefull meant. I think s/he (?) meant that s/he deserves to get into these schools because s/he was able to do well despite attending a "bad" high school. It shows motivation, ability, etc. Or, at least, that's what I understood.</p>

83

<p>mmm I kind of got that from what he said. </p>

<p>I didn't articulate it well, but my point was sort of meant to encompass that as well.</p>

<p>I feel that all of these URMs who have been accepted from similarly yucky backgrounds have overcome stuff in their own way. As I said before, I think it's selfish to say: oh, I've been able to get relatively good scores so all people from bad high schools who got into yale should be able to do this too.</p>

<p>That's like me saying: oh wow! since I'm a national merit semifinalist and a national AP scholar and a person with national recognition in an activity, then EVERYONE who gets into harvard from my income bracket should have similar merits. That would be ludicrous.</p>

84

<p>I really do not get why some of you are extremely ignorant; are smart people only those who are good in maths or sciences? I totally disagree. Of course, i admire these scientists/mathematicians for being able to solve challenging problems etc, but can't artists and musicians be smart too??? I deeply admire these artists/musicians for being good at what they are. Can you even control brushes or instruments as well as them???? </p>

<p>I just don't get it. Yale does not only offer courses in maths and sciences okay? but this great institution also offer courses in many other areas including arts/humanities/languages etc.</p>

<p>I also want to make a point about SAT scores. When you say that someone only get 1950 blah blah blah? Have you considered their backgrounds? maybe English is not his/her first language, possibly??. Like me, I got below 600 for Critical reading but I still worked very hard to get above 2000 for my overall score. (i have been learning English for 4 yrs only) Are you saying that I don't deserve to get into Yale just because of my poor critical reading score, which is due to the lack of experience????? </p>

<p>Guys (only some of you), please be more open minded!
Smart people are not only those who are good at maths, but also those who have talents in other areas!! After all, it is really what you can contribute to the college community and also what changes can you make after you graduate that will truly determine you as a "good" person!</p>

85

<p>preedees, i've read that selective schools will cut applicants some slack on the CR score if their first language is not English. On the other hand, Yale is able to fill its classes with students who are all-around high achievers, so for them to select a person who is a high achiever in only one area (whether that is science or art), the person has to be a super high achiever in that area.</p>

86

<p>Hunt, you are actually right. I agree that the person has to be a super high achiever in that area.</p>

<p>Well, apart from the facts that my CR scores suck, my other grades r pretty much decent. So i will just hope for the best even though i know its highly unlikely i will be admitted:P im Thai by the way, if that helps :( and i think i am pretty good at art (submitted an art portfolio), so that might bring some diversity to the college. lol lol lol</p>

87

<p>Thanks to pianista and drbigboy (lol, awesome sn)</p>

<p>(Eating food, please tone down the use of heavy familiars....I mean, really...it's creepy)</p>

<p>It's all well and dandy to bicker about our speculation of what admissions processes actually entail, but save any of us winning significant political clout in the coming weeks, none of this is constructive.</p>

<p>However, I can't frankly hold serious the intentions of anyone that says a persons race should be used as criteria for any admission (or rejection) because that is discrimination (i.e. decision making) motivated by 'race'.</p>

<p>If it is the contention of anyone that people whose ancestors (and current relations and themselves) are in someway disadvantaged as a function of race then any attempt to correct such a wrong shouldn't come with the possible diminishing of another's accomplishments</p>

88

<p>
[QUOTE]
Thanks to pianista and drbigboy (lol, awesome sn)

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Haha, thanks. I would say the history behind it, but it's too long of a story and irrelevant for this forum...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
However, I can't frankly hold serious the intentions of anyone that says a persons race should be used as criteria for any admission (or rejection) because that is discrimination (i.e. decision making) motivated by 'race'.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I think that any institution which wants diversity, which is a vast majority of them, cannot have a "race-blind" admissions process, ESPECIALLY not with the current education system and only 50 years after Brown. I think that one day we might be able to have "race-blind" admissions and still have diversity. But not now.</p>

89

<p>but collegehopefull, the point is AA is NOT diminishing your (sorry, "another's") accomplishments. I think that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on one of these boards. If you have such low self-esteem that you think everything you have been through and everything you have accomplished is worthless because you don't get into an Ivy League school, AND on top of that are going to try to blame that on URM's, you need a serious wake-up call. Adcoms are not saying, oh well, we'd take you, but hey, there's this mediocre black kid sitting right here and we need diversity. The whole point is that admissions is holistic. By you stating that all the "accomplished" people who risen to the top despite poverty/bad schools/etc. are the worthy ones, you're insinuating that those who who have had it easier in terms of god-given circumstances but have the same scores etc. as you aren't worthy to get into good schools later, which totally negates your entire point. Rich people were born rich, poor people were born poor, just as asians are born asian and blacks are born black, and none of us can do anything to change this. Admissions tends to favor the wealthy, but we don't hear you complaning about that. EVERYONE has competition in the admissions game, and for the most part, it's based around regions. I'm in the mid-atlantic, where the craziest most Ivy obsessed kids are. </p>

<p>The fact of the matter is we all are born into a certain life, and all we can do is try our best to wiggle around the constraints that will color our lives forever, whether it be race or wealth or a bulbous growth on one's nose. Stop trying to blame others for...nothing, really. You haven't gotten in, you haven't been deferred or rejected or anything yet. And if you do get in, well, your whole point will be negated due to the fact that no one "diminished your value". What will be your argument then? And if you don't, suck it up. It's no one's fault. Admissions is a crapshoot.</p>

90

<p>Straw man, anyone?</p>

<p>The point I have tried to make, many times, is that the criteria for admission into a school should be purely academic.</p>

<p>Accepting that circumstances of wealth and opportunity greatly distort the difficulties in pursuing rigor in academic achievement for highschoolers (and thus the ability of a admissions committee to measure someone purely academically), I proposed taking the quality of a person's school and measuring that against their achievements as a means to adjust for disparity in opportunity.</p>

<p>You: "Admissions tends to favor the wealthy, but we don't hear you complaning [sic] about that." </p>

<p>In fact, I have a huge problem with admissions favoring the wealthy - but they don't do it because they have some predilection for wealthy people. They favor the wealthy because they don't appropriately adjust for the quality of schooling and see only that Candidate A did much better than Candidate B (i.e. a kid that went to a Philips Academy and does only as well as a kid that goes to my school did 'worse' in comparison, but if you had no information about the schools, you might think they were on par as students)</p>

<p>What I fail to see is what relevance 'race' (which is a hilarious product of sociologists projecting some biological gestalt onto incredibly complex and immeasurably minute differences between people - thus my constant derision of the word) has in that process.</p>

<p>Should someone who went to a poor school and did as well as someone who went to a rich school be considered more competitive? Yes.
Should someone with no family members who went to college that scores just as well on the SATs as a child whose dad is a Rhodes Scholar be judged as more competitive? Yeah.</p>

<p>Or more generally stated:</p>

<p>Should someone who overcame their circumstances and performed on a level typical of people who were much more fortunate than them be judged as a better student? YES!</p>

<p>(Should that tip the scales in their favor? YES!)</p>

<p>Should skin color/national origin/gender/sexual orientation/sex/political leanings/veteran status/ethnicity/religion/physically impaired status/marital status/ have anything to do with someone's admissions into a school?</p>

<p>Absolutely not.</p>

<p>You won't convince me otherwise, regardless of the amount of injurious sarcasm, assumption of circumstance, and roundabout logic you use.</p>

<p>I'm spent, and I'm not going to try anymore to justify my personal opinions to people whom I don't know.
Good day.</p>

91

<p>No, it should not be purely academic! What of community service, and leadership activities, and sports, and everything else that makes sitting through 6 hours of class worth it?</p>

<p>I think the admission officers DO measure achievements in the context of the students' backgrounds; how else would we have students from rural areas, or overcrowded urban public schools, going to the same university as would someone from an elite private school? They take everything into account, which explains why the application forms and essays are so extensive, and they allow you to write in additional information. I trust these officers to make good decisions, and although there may be a degree of luck to the admissions process, people who are admitted have accomplished something or another to deserve it. Regional officers are familiar with the schools in their area and will be able to measure how well a student has performed in the context of his/her environment.</p>

<p>Personally I don't like affirmative action because I'm Asian, and to be selfish, I don't benefit. And now this is being really general, but the statistics show a strong correlation between URMs and income on the lower side. However, admissions officers will also pay attention to an individual's family income, regardless of race. Not to belabor the point, but they look at EVERYTHING, HOLISTICALLY. If Yale doesn't offer me admission, I believe that it will be due to others simply being more competitive than me, and not because of my golden complexion :) </p>

<p>On a side note, I have invested so much time and emotion (does that make sense?) into Yale that I will be disappointed if I don't get in. And cry. And then suck it up and work on other applications.</p>

92

<p>I'm Asian myself and I don't like Affirmative Action, although I do support one that accounts for economic disparities rather than racial ones. </p>

<p>Should a rich African-American take precedence over a poor white or Asian? Should a poor Asian immigrant (bilingual, helps parents communicate/work) face more difficult odds because has was an "ORM"? </p>

<p>That said, I know AA factors little into acceptance process as Yale seeks to develop a diverse student body. Furthermore, being accepted at Yale regardless of your race is no small accomplishment. Finally, good luck to all of you. I hope we all get accepted to Yale :D.</p>

93

<p>
[QUOTE]
Should someone who overcame their circumstances and performed on a level typical of people who were much more fortunate than them be judged as a better student? YES!</p>

<p>(Should that tip the scales in their favor? YES!)</p>

<p>Should skin color/national origin/gender/sexual orientation/sex/political leanings/veteran status/ethnicity/religion/physically impaired status/marital status/ have anything to do with someone's admissions into a school?</p>

<p>Absolutely not.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I agree with you to some degree (or fully). Do you think that someone who got a 1900 or so on the SATs, a "good" GPA (not stellar, like 4.7 or something ridiculous that I didn't even know existed but something good like 3.7 or something), good ECs, good essays but nothing spectacular who attends a really bad school (low graduation rate, low achievement rate, etc.) should get into Yale over someone who got a 2400 on the SAT, amazing GPA (once again, something ridiculous like a 4.5 or something), good ECs, good essays but attended a school where this is the expectation simply because, on paper they look better? (That was a confusing question. Hope people can understand it.)</p>

<p>If you say no, then I blatantly disagree with you.</p>

<p>If you say yes, then I'm absolutely agreeing with you. What ends up happening then is that it "looks" like AA because most people in that situation are people of color.</p>

<p>But, I would go a step further and say that if the school is trying to seek diversity, which I think is a good thing, and all their applicants of color are not even close to being on par with white applicants, you just have to accept "unqualified" applicants in order to have diversity. Do I think this is fair? No. I never bring this up, however, because I don't think this is ever the case. In my experience, only students of color who have fared well academically apply to Yale. In fact, they're the only ones who even know Yale exists. So that this theoretical situation never really happens.</p>

94

<p>Btw: Happy Thanksgiving!</p>

95

<p>EC <-------Things that make pursuing academics more difficult, because they are developing interests outside of school and thus would help a candidate under what I said.</p>

<p>Again, if the qualifications are the same, a candidate at a crappy school with strong EC's is more qualified than the kid who went to Philips Exeter.</p>

<p>But that's the only situation in which a comparison between two applications should stray from test scores/GPA/recs.</p>

96

<p>collegehopefull, sorry about my roundabout logic. i get confusing at times. and please don't get so frustrated. this is a dicussion, not an argument in my opinion. if i offended you, i'm sincerely sorry.</p>

<p>but anyway, now that you're back of your own accord, i must present a few things to you. this is short and sweet.</p>

<p>2 Facts:
1)People are born a certain skin color that will not change.
2)People, for the most part, are born into a certain income bracket that won't change until they are old enough to work and educate themselves.</p>

<h2>collegehopefull, we all know your situation, and that's all great and well. But step out of your life for a second and look at things from an independent perspective. There is nothing that makes affirmative action "discrimination" different from socioeconomic "discrimination". They both base admissions decisions on factors the applicant cannot control. </h2>

<p>for anyone else who cares, more of my thoughts on these things:
AA began with end of Jim Crow, and involves a history which is tinted with hundreds of years of violence and abuse and confrontation, whereas socioeconomic issues are constantly dicussed but rarely confronted, and have existed since the beginning of society and will probably last forever. Race is always right there, in your face, while a person's social status can easily be hidden under a borrowed Ralph Lauren polo and a rented purse. I think that the reason people target AA so much is because it's easier to see- you can obviously count black people better than you can count poor people. What is poor? Poor in Malibu is different from poor in DC is different from poor in South Dakota. Why is the PROFILE a 3-hour long process? Because it's really hard to figure out how a person's income affects and molds their lifestyle, and how certain expenses like college can change that. Even after all that, some people don't get enough aid even though the "formula" says that can afford a school. On the contrary, a minority is just a minority.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter, holistic admissions naturally helps people with low incomes and bad schools. You put your school on the application. Google can easily tell an adcom whether it's a prep or a crappy public. They don't sit there saying "why didn't x student take 29 AP's" if your school only offers one. That's what the school profile is for! You check the financial aid box and send off your FAFSA and PROFILE. You put down your parents jobs and education levels. They know all this when they're making their decisions. I don't get when people say that they wish that colleges would do things from a socioeconomic point of view, because why else would they ask for these things if they didn't consider them? Being a 1st-gen college student is just as much of a "hook" as being a black or hispanic student, even if said student is a minority or Asian.</p>

<p>And let's all try to not act like we know what goes on behind those closed doors. Like I said in a previous post, none of us know anything besides what we can deduce from often years-old statistics and (even worse of a source) anecdotes and trends from our lives.</p>

<p>Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving all!</p>

97

<p>it exists.</p>

<p>no use debating.</p>

<p>and honestly, Yale won't accept any URM that isn't qualified.</p>

<p>this discussion is pointless.</p>

98

<p>eating food and princessbell, your arguments are eloquent and logical, and i applaud you for that. personally, as a so-called ORM, i feel that much of the institutional racism in this country applies to us just as much as to the more "traditional" minorities of African-American and Hispanic. there are hurtful stereotypes about chinese people, about koreans, about indians--this is the very same racism that (as princessbell correctly pointed out) affirmative action is designed to redress--unfortunately, because i'm asian, i don't reap the benefits, and i don't think that's particularly fair.</p>

<p>but one point that you made rings true: colleges will do what's in THEIR best interest, not necessarily what is fair to applicants. they have a ridiculous number of extraordinarily well-qualified, smart people to choose from--it stands to reason that they'd want as many different viewpoints as possible.</p>

<p>bottom line: don't take college admissions to be worth more than they are.</p>

99

<p>I agree with the poster above. Racism is more than black and white, although I understand it has the most significance. Remember, the Chinese, as well as others IIRC, were banned from entering the United States for roughly six decades. Furthermore, racial stereotypes were not levied on African-Americans alone.</p>

100

<p>Believe me friends, I'm well aware of America and its history.</p>

<p>But it's not about that.. so let's let this die down :(</p>