<p>Would it be easier to be accepted to Columbia University if you are a minority, especially if it is a minority that does not excel academically?</p>
<p>AA can give you more of a chance i guess…but if your not competent and have low/bad SATs and GPA than it won’t help</p>
<p>unless you’re low income as well. then try HEOP.</p>
<p>Why would it be easier if you do not excel academically?</p>
<p>but doesn’t HEOP require that you get below a certain SAT score? or something like that?</p>
<p>Yeah, you have to have lower than a 620 on the CR. Personally, I don’t understand that. Why can’t smart kids get the money and help from HEOP?</p>
<p>For the record I know a “minority” (Mexican kid) who was in the 95 percentile on his SAT and had a 4.0 UNWEIGHTED GPA and still didn’t get in. Would it would have been better if he was white? Columbia is hard for EVERYONE. So stop making ignorant assumptions. Affirmative Action is dead the Supreme Court killed it in 1977 with the Bakke decision and the state referendums around the country have been dancing on its grave ever since.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ignorant poster. Ignorant post.</p>
<p>Bakke did in fact destroy the premise of affirmative action so I would not go so far as to call “Relampago” ignorant. The basic premise of affirmative action programs was to provide quotas for historically marginalized peoples (women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, American Indians, Puerto Ricans and yes even Asian Americans along with working class people of every background) as a way to even out the privilege of the wealthy white males that dominated colleges and university admissions prior to advent of the GI bill and as a way to offset almost 200 years of legal segregation. That said, Bakke eliminated quotas only seven to nine years after most of these programs were instituted. For example at my campus, there were less than 100 students of color at UCLA in the late 1960s out of 20,000-25,000 students. The first affirmative action programs (High Potential Program) admitted only 100 students of color. </p>
<p>What most people equate affirmative action with is quotas, as the initial question in this thread suggested. Quotas have been illegal for 30 yrs. After the Bakke decision, many court decisions and state and local referendums have chipped away at the remnants of affirmative action, and the use of race as a factor was one of only many factors such as gender, (let us keep in mind the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action numbers wise historically are white women), socio-economic status, regional diversity, are you a first generation college student etc etc. Finally in 2003, the Supreme Court said race was a compelling notion to consider in order to achieve diversity BUT the Univ of Michigan needed to figure out a different way to use it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.umich.edu/pres/aate/case/[/url]”>http://www.umich.edu/pres/aate/case/</a></p>
<p>So before making such sweeping statements, like calling people ignorant, perhaps you should do your homework. ;-)</p>
<p>Peace</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He is ignorant, as are you. Affirmative action is not dead. The Supreme Court did not kill it in 1977, nor did it kill it in 2003. In fact, the Court in 2003 ruled that UM Law’s affirmative action program WAS constitutional. Your diatribe – and attempt to defend the ignorant poster Relampago – is misplaced and filled with irrelevancies, and the fact remains that each of you should do your homework and realize that he is dead wrong.</p>
<p>Right. Bakke eliminated quotas but upheld the notions of affirmative action as a factor under consideration. Good ol’ Lewis Powell being a swing vote.</p>
<p>If you need someone to explain this to you, why not go ask President Bollinger, who defended and won the relevant UMich case in 2003.</p>
<p>Relampago’s last sentence is categorically, 100% wrong.</p>