<p>I don't know, maybe it's how they've been taught to lead? </p>
<p>You know it's the theroy of the good jobs and the Aw %$$%#'s.</p>
<p>One Aw %#$$% wipes out a thousand atta boys. </p>
<p>Yale needs to produce some more atta boys, at least 2,500 or what ever the count is today.</p>
<p>it's unfair to say that someone will get in plainly b/c of his/her race even with "subpar" stats. what i think IS fair to say is that due to his her race/ethnicity a person with Lower stats might be accepted over a person with Higher stats but part of a majority (though it's interesting to note that asians are no longer considered a minority). also, it's important to note that even whites And asians with "lower" stats get into harvard b/c of something unique about them.</p>
<p>so from these conclusions, another conclusion that can be drawn is that there is an exception to every rule and generalization (ironically), especially at harvard. just take a look a the EA decision thread. and as you can see, even the blacks who got in have pretty outstanding stats, although perhaps somewhat lower than those whites (presumably) who were rejected. so race does play a part, but not with every applicant nor with every race. i do concede that hispanics and blacks get reconsidered more often with lower stats for their ethnicity (which can be legally considered as an admissions factor), however, by no means does this mean that a black/hispanic with Very subpar grades will get a second look if there is nothing else outstanding.</p>
<p>=p just a note - please no one start bringing up this and that exception because i already said there were many exceptions to harvard thus = harvard's exceptional students and applicant pool (assumedly).</p>
<p>Opie:
I think I'm being stupid, but I don't know what the Aw %#$$% curseword is supposed to represent...sorry. But to the larger point, I don't think their deficiencies are due to Ivies...they might be due to other factors. That is why I listed so many other Ivy graduates who were, on the large part, down to earth. So maybe there isn't a correlation.</p>
<p>To Yubi:
Let me try to understand what you are saying. "it's unfair to say that someone will get in plainly because of his/her race with subpar stats," but it "IS fair" to think someone who is a minority will be accepted over a person with higher stats.</p>
<p>No one is saying this girl can get in plainly because of her race. We are saying that lower standards will be applied to her, since she is a minority...lower standards than would be applied to the average white or Asian applicant.</p>
<p>And while it is important to note that while whites and Asians with lower stats get in, it is rare. This does not happen as much as blacks with lower stats getting in over whites and Asians. Sure, there are exceptions, but when we postulate, we should do so with what is common.</p>
<p>I also want to address the argument that blacks who get in have "outstanding" stats. First of all, semantically, this is true...their statistics stand out from the rest of the applicant pool because they are LOWER than the rest of the applicant pool's stats (on average). But when we start making the argument that Blacks have "acceptable" stats, or stats that make them "qualifiable" for Harvard, we impose no restrictions on what "qualified" and "acceptable" is. Are we saying that their stats are higher than the stats of the average white applicant at a state university? That they might be. But they are still lower than those of other applicants at Harvard or Princeton. Claiming that blacks are "qualified" to get into Harvard, or that they have "good stats" ignores the fact that statistics are measured relative to other statistics, and "good" and "bad" are relative terms. I may be better than the average Joe in basketball, but that does not make it acceptable for me to join the NBA. If my basketball skills are "good" compared to the stats of Average Joe, are they good by the standards of the NBA? And what are the standards? We must define these clearly first.</p>
<p>After claiming that race does play a part, there is no need to say that it does with every applicant or with every race. We KNOW it does not play a part with every race (ie: caucasians, Asian Pacific Islanders). The claim that it does not play a part with every applicant is dubious...I know some Black and Hispanic people from prep schools here at Princeton. While their stats are higher than those of impoverished whites, their stats are, on general, lower than others from magnet schools (Thomas Jefferson, etc). </p>
<p>Your claim that not all "black/hispanic with Very subpar grades will get a second look if there is nothing outstanding." Yeah, if they are bad enough, they won't get a second look. No one is claiming they would. If they are not "bad enough," they MIGHT get a second look and then get rejected.</p>
<p>I think it would suffice to say that if admissions were raceblind, there would be very very few blacks at harvard.</p>
<p>For the first few years, perhaps, but what that would do is send the message to the black community that their culture (which is highly anti-intellectual) must change. Also, affirmative action's dark side is that many students who are simply not prepared/qualified to enter top schools do anyway, are overwhelmed by the workload, and drop out. Harvard's admissions policies have managed to largely circumvent this, but if you think about it, Harvard is a special case as they've had 372 years to get their admissions policies right. At any rate, the issue of affirmative action may soon meet its demise in front of the Supreme Court, as two cases challenging it, one from Kentucky and one from Washington, have just been accepted by the court and with Roberts (a Harvard alumnus) and Alito on the court, this unpleasant blotch on our educational system may finally be ended.</p>
<p>I think that there is something strange about the OP's post. Previously, the OP had indicated that she was a male, who had already been accepted into the University of Virginia--I doubt he has morphed into a female who is a current junior</p>
<p>To pro.gatby:</p>
<p>If you are familiar at all with Supreme Court rulings, you would understand what I am saying. There is no "lower standard" that is going to be passed or not passed (so that refutes pretty much half your argument) because everything is decided on a case by case basis, the only constitutional way that race can be considered an admissions factor. (which please do not argue about until you have read the case U.S. v. Virginia).</p>
<p>And if you concede that "semantically" speaking (which is how everyone speaks) that I am correct and you agree with me, then I have to concede that there is no argument. And also I find it interesting that you claim there is no real standard (as you have just put when you pretty much proved that everything is relative by one individual and the adcom's feelings to another individual), then how can you claim that there are standards at all?</p>
<p>And you also said that we "KNOW" it does not play a part with every race, which would be incorrect. "The claim that it does not play a part with every applicant is dubious."
^ you just keep going against something you established before. Because if you are going to say that a black will get preference over a white of similar stats, then you are saying that the white is going to be practically discriminated agaisnt (meaning, they will be looked at or judged somewhat differently, by no means do I mean it in a negative way) then how can you say that it does not affect the whites and asians? one has to be compared to the other in order to have race become a factor.</p>
<p>"If they are not "bad enough," they MIGHT get a second look and then get rejected." - ..... it doesn't refute what i said. you have made no point by that.</p>
<p>OTHERWIIIIISE IN SUMMATIOOOON - your messages are way too long and i simply do not have the time to read through everything you say. so please, if we are to continue, keep your messages concise. point, move on. point, move on. and be more coherent please.</p>
<p>Midatlmom - In this case, I'm guessing that this is a younger sibling of the earlier poster, but pattycake should probably come back and clarify if this is this case.</p>
<p>On Affirmative Action: To be honest with you, before I started at Princeton, I was against affirmataive action. However, since then, although I still have reservations about the policy, I've changed my mind and here's why:</p>
<p>First of all, I believe that it is in a college's interest to have a diverse student body. While not every interaction with someone from a different race or background is going to be a learning experience, nor should it, being surrounded by a diverse group does provide different perspectives, which I believe are valuable. I am never going to know how it feels to be racially profiled, but I did get some sense of the anger it inspires when my closest friend told me her bag had been searched at a local store. I may never understand the faith of a Pentecostal, but I now know that there are reasonable and intelligent people who think speaking in tongues is perfectly normal. I now know that there are two main denominations of Lutherans, and that some will not take communion with the other branch. I know that there are people who think its OK to fly the confederate flag who are not racists. Some of these might be minor things, and some of them are things I should have been aware of before. But the point is, being around someone with different experiences than your own frequently teaches you things you could not have learned staying only among those of your own background.</p>
<p>Now that is just the benefit those in the majority recieve. For minorities, AA not only gives individuals an opportunity, it will hopefully have the effect of changing the kind of culture that Canaday spoke of, and making achievement more widespread among the Black community. The students graduating from top schools are going to be, for the most part, educated professionals raising their kids in homes where learning is valued, an important societal goal. And while not everything is white America's fault, the American government does have to acknowledge that it bears at least some responsibility for the current racial inequities in our country.</p>
<p>So much for the benefits of AA. Obviously, the main objection t oit is that it is unfair to the white and Asian applicants who would have gotten in if it weren't for the policy. However, while I do feel sorry for those people, I think that the effects of the unfairness are relatively limited.</p>
<p>The way I see it, there are three groups of admits/students at top schools
1) The incredibly impressive, maybe even "genius" applicant.
2) The student who is extremely qualified, but not necessarily in a way that sets him or her apart from other extremely qualified applicants, i.e, high test scores, near the top of the class, committed to a few quality ECs, some awards, etc
3) The applicant who, while still a strong student, might not seem qualified except for some "hook" who makes him or her particularly desirable to adcoms.</p>
<p>The first group is necessarily small for any school: obviously, the reason these applicants are so impressive is because they are elite even among such a high achieving group. These students will be auto-admits regardless of demographics.</p>
<p>The vast majority of applicants (and, ultimately, students), however, fall into the second group. For certain demographic groups (white suburban, asian), there are so many of these applicants that the school will be forced to choose between them. Some will get in, some won't. The ones that don't may be as qualified as the ones that do, which most admissions offices will acknowledge. Their simply isn't enough space for everyone. However, there are fewer minority applicants - so the minority in this group is much more likely to get in than a white student with similar, or even slightly higher stats. Once a student is in this group, colleges recognize that small differences in rank and SAT scores aren't that important - everyone is qualified. </p>
<p>Now, it is true that a white applicant might be justified in saying that if he were a URM he would have gotten in. This is somewhat unfair. But, while the applicant might have gotten in as a URM, he would likely still not have gotten in in a world without AA. Consider what would happened if there were no AA. Some minorities would get in anyway - although a significantly smaller number. So, there would be a somewhat greater number of slots open for other students. But most of the people who were rejected with AA would still have been rejected if it didn't exist - because no matter how you admit people, there are too many students and too few spots. In either case, the same number of qualified people are going to have to be rejected - its just that with AA, a white person is more likely to be one of those people. However, the school has increased its diversity without lowering standards. </p>
<p>Of course, there is that third category of people whose scores would not ordinarily qualify them, but who have a "hook." First of all, as others have mentioned, a lot of other charaacateristics besides race are considered "hooks." But is race alone the kind of "hook" that will get someone who isn't academically qualified into a top school? The admitedly anecdotal evidence of CC stats posts suggests no. A black student from a priveleged background will benefit from AA if he is already qualified - he will be one of my "group 2" people. But if he doesn't have the stats, he won't get in just because he is black. A student with lower stats who comes from a disadvantaged background might be considered, while a suburban white kid wouldn't be. However, a white student from a disadvantaged background would also have the kind of "hook" that could counteract some transcript deficiencies. Yes, the black student would still be more desirabale, but, just as in group 2, that doesn't mean that black students are admitted with stats that no white or Asian could get away with. Again, just as in the earlier case, the difference in that what for a white applicant might be a toss-up is for a black applicant a safer bet - it isn't as if they are letting in totally unqualified people.</p>
<p>So, to recap a rambling post, AA results in a limited number of over-represented majority students not getting spots. However, it does not result in a substantially weaker class, nor does reward the undeserving. While in a perfect world it would not be necessary, in our world, I think the benefits outweight the flaws.</p>
<p>Let me address your points individually. I don't know how to do the College Confidential quote thingie, so bear with me:</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:</p>
<p>"If you are familiar at all with Supreme Court rulings, you would understand what I am saying. There is no "lower standard" that is going to be passed or not passed (so that refutes pretty much half your argument) because everything is decided on a case by case basis, the only constitutional way that race can be considered an admissions factor."</p>
<p>REPLY:</p>
<p>What do you mean that there is no lower standards that will be "passed or not passed"? How are "lower standards" passed in courts? And everything is decided on a "case by case" basis, but the case by case basis has certain similarities. And that is, in NEARLY all case-by-case reviews in the college admissions process, blacks get preference over other races. Your sentence is incoherent. It doesn't refute "pretty much half" my argument.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:</p>
<p>"(which please do not argue about until you have read the case U.S. v. Virginia)."</p>
<p>I REPLY:</p>
<p>I've read this. This involved the creation of an all-male military academy in Virginia. This is a different situation from affirmative action, because there is no push to deliberately create an "all-white" class, or an "all-Asian" class. Moreover, the reason that a Virginia Women's Military Institute would be "less rigorous" than a Men's military institute is because many qualified soldiers would CHOOSE not to teach at a women's institute, because women are less likely to advance in an army or sustain an army (women are still not allowed in some divisions). The cases were different.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"And if you concede that "semantically" speaking (which is how everyone speaks) that I am correct and you agree with me, then I have to concede that there is no argument."</p>
<p>REPLY:
Everyone does not speak semantically. You don't dissect every one of your sentences. Most people speak conversationally. And I said that as a joke. By semantics, "outstanding" meant "outstanding" due to lesser quality. And so, you don't have to "concede" that there is no argument, because then, you will concede that Blacks are outstandingly low...which I don't think you wanted to do. Because, all jokes aside, there still is an argument.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"And also I find it interesting that you claim there is no real standard (as you have just put when you pretty much proved that everything is relative by one individual and the adcom's feelings to another individual), then how can you claim that there are standards at all?"</p>
<p>REPLY:
The standards does not differ from one adcom's feelings to another. That isn't what I said. You read my post incorrectly. The standard is different from "group to group," from "admissions checkpoint to admissions checkpoint." Let me give you an example...the standard of "good" is different for athletes trying to qualify by NCAA standards, and for people trying to get into Harvard.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"And you also said that we "KNOW" it does not play a part with every race, which would be incorrect. "The claim that it does not play a part with every applicant is dubious."
^ you just keep going against something you established before."</p>
<p>REPLY:
I said that it does not play a part for every race. I also the claim that it does not play a part for every BLACK applicant is dubious. The statements do not clash. I did not go against myself.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"Because if you are going to say that a black will get preference over a white of similar stats, then you are saying that the white is going to be practically discriminated agaisnt (meaning, they will be looked at or judged somewhat differently, by no means do I mean it in a negative way) then how can you say that it does not affect the whites and asians?"</p>
<p>REPLY:
I never said that it does not affect whites and Asians. That is a lie.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"one has to be compared to the other in order to have race become a factor."</p>
<p>REPLY:
OK, you have no point. I talked about comparison among different COLLEGES...that is, "good" by the standards of Comm. College is not "good" by the standards of Harvard. When I talked about "relativity" it was not a comparison between races, but a comparison between different applicant pools for different colleges.</p>
<p>YUBI SAYS:
"OTHERWIIIIISE IN SUMMATIOOOON - your messages are way too long and i simply do not have the time to read through everything you say. so please, if we are to continue, keep your messages concise. point, move on. point, move on. and be more coherent please."</p>
<p>REPLY:
I'm sorry if you don't have time. I'm sorry if you're too lazy to read ANY of my points correctly (in this post, I didn't answer your arguments...I corrected your interpretation of what you read. You read what I wrote incorrectly). I move on in my posts after I have made the points. Sir, I think lack of coherency is a problem that you, first, should address in your posts.</p>
<p>Goodnight!</p>
<p>ICarGirl...your post is well thought out, but I wonder, where can the line be drawn between group 1 and 2, if not for SAT scores and grades, etc? And why can SAT scores and grades differentiate group 1 from group 2, but then not matter within group 2?</p>
<p>And if everyone in group 2 is equally qualified, is selection within one racial group simply random and arbitrary? I would hope not. Moreover, at this point, I assume that you say that the difference between the minority applicant who gets selected and the difference between the white applicant who gets selected is not so great. But I can't accept that until I agree that there IS a clear group (or even a group by itself) in which all applicants are equally qualified. And if so, why is there any problem with Affirmative Action at all? Obviously, some applicants are more qualified than others, and hence they protest when the others get in. So that means there are differences within this group.</p>
<p>Also, as I wrote in the post above yours, what determines "qualified" v. "unqualified"? Qualified vis a vis the rest of the applicants? Because obviously, minorities who get selected aren't objectively "qualified" COMPARED to other applicants with higher test scores.</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:</p>
<p>"Some minorities would get in anyway - although a significantly smaller number. So, there would be a somewhat greater number of slots open for other students. But most of the people who were rejected with AA would still have been rejected if it didn't exist - because no matter how you admit people, there are too many students and too few spots. "</p>
<p>REPLY:
I don't see how this makes sense. If the class size is the same, and the given applicants are the same, and a certain group is not given more consideration than another group, then the chances of the white or Asian applicant's admittance is higher. Look at it this way. If you have forty people trying to get through a door, and people from Group A nearly ALWAYS placed in front of the others, the chances of the people Group B being in the front (and hence getting in) are slim. But, if no one is automatically placed at the front, the probability of the Group B getting in the front rises. And so, the probability of them gettin in rises.</p>
<p>On your last point, I am afraid that I disagree again. Again, I don't agree that even most wealthy African American applicants are as "qualified" as wealthy White applicants...and I don't know if I believe that simply "qualification," ie being part of group 2, is enough to get into Harvard. Qualification should entail qualification over others.</p>
<p>lol... this is getting ridiculous... how can ppl deny the fact that many qualified asians/whites get rejected cos their places r given to blacks and hispanics with much lower stats including ECs... fact is that if blacks/hispanics told the admissions officers that they were asian/white, we would have a very few blacks/hispanics at top unis... this is due to the fact that URMs CAN GET AWAY WITH LOWER STANDARDS... it would be unfair to all the qualified asians/whites to assert the everyone is treated equally, cos they're NOT!!!</p>
<p>Absolutely right. People on CC can deny the existence of AA all they want but the fact of the matter is that URMs get in with significantly lower academic credentials. I'm not saying there aren't any qualified URM applicants who deserve to get it, because there are plenty. But just go on the EA/RD threads for HYP, look for people who got in with a 2000 or lower on their SATs, and you'll find that 90% of these are URMs.</p>
<p>AA is absolutely absurd. It is amoral. It serves to lower the quality of this country's intelligentsia. It is RACISM dressed up like justice. It should be stopped, along with the other injustices colleges commit in the admissions process (like favoring athletes, legacies, etc.).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely right. People on CC can deny the existence of AA all they want but the fact of the matter is that URMs get in with significantly lower academic credentials. I'm not saying there aren't any qualified URM applicants who deserve to get it, because there are plenty. But just go on the EA/RD threads for HYP, look for people who got in with a 2000 or lower on their SATs, and you'll find that 90% of these are URMs.
[/quote]
no one has denied the existence of AA... people are just arguing for/against it...</p>
<p>hotpiece101, what I've noticed is people aren't arguing for/against it (except iCarGirl perhaps). Everyone before her was arguing that the Black applicants and white/Asian applicants are equally qualified. That is what I was arguing against.</p>
<p>pro.gatsby is definitely right... I can understand qualified blacks/hispanics getting angry at r posts, but they have to accept the fact that we're talking about the general black/hispanic applicant pool, and we're not denying that fact that there r qualified URMs, but there r definitely fewer qualified URMs than qualified asians/whites... its just not fair for all those rejected asians/whites to assert anything else!!!</p>
<p>progatsby- If I were an adcom, I'm sure there would be cases in which I would disagree with certain admissions decisions - for example, if a wealthy URM got over markedly better applicants just because the school wanted to be more diverse. However, while I'm sure this happens, I don't think that these kinds of injustices make up the majority of AA cases - if only because there have been cases on these boards were seemingly very qualified URMs from wealthy families have been rejected from top schools. Now, I think this is rare, but if the qualified URM sometimes gets rejected, then I would imagine that unqualified ones get rejected much more frequently. I remember once seeing a statistic that Harvard's acceptance rate for Black students was 16% - significantly higher than it is for whites, particularly if you consider that the pool may not have been as strong to start off, but certainly not an open-door policy. And I doubt that most of these applicants were mediocre students relying on AA, though some of them may have been. </p>
<p>I do believe that minorities from disadvantaged circumstances get a boost. However, I believe this is true of any student from disadvantaged circumstances, although again, the changes are better for URMs.</p>
<p>I acknowledge that some white students will lose spots because of AA. However, my argument is that the effect is pretty limited. Let's assume a class size of 10 an and applicant pool of 100. In the whole group, there are only 4 URMs. The school decides that they want their class to be 20% URM, so they are looking to take two of those 4 students. So the acceptance rate for them is going to be 50%, and the acceptance rate for others will be under 10 % (clearly, I'm exaggerating the advantage for simplicity's sake). But while any one of the 88 rejected white applicants would likely have gotten in if he was a URM, the chances that he would have gotten in without AA would be extremely small. At the max, two more students would have gotten in - so 86 of those people would still be rejected. The 88 haven't lost their spot to minorities any more than they've lost their spot to other people on the list with similar stats - or to athletes, or legacies, or regional minorities.</p>
<p>I would see this as problematic if I believed the school were really compromising itself by taking the two URMs. However, suppose one of them really does have great stats. We can always quibble about whether his stats were "better" than everyone else in the pool, but he would have been a reasonable applicant regardless of race. Since college admissions is holistic, and isn't a total stat game, you can't say that every 1560 should get in over every 1510, or every val over every number 5, even if race weren't a factor. So, the college has accepted a student who is virtually equal to white counterparts in the class, even if there are some in the applicant pool who could be percieved asa objectively stronger.</p>
<p>Maybe the second does have lower stats - a high 1300s SAT, say, and good grades but not many ECs. That person would not have gotten in, ordinarily. But suppose this is a first generation student from a poor family, who maybe didn't go to the best schools. Why is that admission so unfair? I can tell you that its very unlikely that I would have had an 800 verbal if I hadn't been raised by an English teacher. Even becoming a reader in later life wouldn't have compensated for losing out on daily interaction with people with better vocabularies or early exposure to literature. And I can guarantee that I wouldn't have had a 740 Math without months of tutoring - my PSAT was a 660. Basically, my stats are in large part a function of my upbringing. Similarly, would I have gone to good summer programs if my parents hadn't been able to pay for it or saavy enough to realize that these things were out there and valuable for admissions.</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:
progatsby- If I were an adcom, I'm sure there would be cases in which I would disagree with certain admissions decisions - for example, if a wealthy URM got over markedly better applicants just because the school wanted to be more diverse. However, while I'm sure this happens, I don't think that these kinds of injustices make up the majority of AA cases - if only because there have been cases on these boards were seemingly very qualified URMs from wealthy families have been rejected from top schools. Now, I think this is rare, but if the qualified URM sometimes gets rejected, then I would imagine that unqualified ones get rejected much more frequently. I remember once seeing a statistic that Harvard's acceptance rate for Black students was 16% - significantly higher than it is for whites, particularly if you consider that the pool may not have been as strong to start off, but certainly not an open-door policy. And I doubt that most of these applicants were mediocre students relying on AA, though some of them may have been. </p>
<p>REPLY:
Again, we are working with what makes a student "qualified" or not. Wealthy minority applicants are significantly less qualified than most other applicants (and since they are "less qualified," I can deem them "unqualified" by the standards of HYP). Although some minority applicants that are AS qualified as nonminority applicants of the same income group ARE rejected, this is a very rare case. Most minority applicants are LESS qualified than other applicants within their same income level. And so, I think I can say they are relatively less qualified, and hence unqualified. I certainly don't think that any "open door policy" exists at HYPS. But that is not what I was arguing. If one group is unqualified compared to others, that does not mean that they came through an open-door policy. That simply means that the locks on their doors were looser. And yes, I would say that many "mediocre" applicants (by the standards of HYPS) who are minorities are accepted.</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:
I do believe that minorities from disadvantaged circumstances get a boost. However, I believe this is true of any student from disadvantaged circumstances, although again, the changes are better for URMs.</p>
<p>REPLY:
I agree. But, since the changes are better for URMs, they on the whole have to undergo laxer standards, and so are relatively less qualified than the other disadvantaged applicants.</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:
I acknowledge that some white students will lose spots because of AA. However, my argument is that the effect is pretty limited. Let's assume a class size of 10 an and applicant pool of 100. In the whole group, there are only 4 URMs. The school decides that they want their class to be 20% URM, so they are looking to take two of those 4 students. So the acceptance rate for them is going to be 50%, and the acceptance rate for others will be under 10 % (clearly, I'm exaggerating the advantage for simplicity's sake). But while any one of the 88 rejected white applicants would likely have gotten in if he was a URM, the chances that he would have gotten in without AA would be extremely small. At the max, two more students would have gotten in - so 86 of those people would still be rejected. The 88 haven't lost their spot to minorities any more than they've lost their spot to other people on the list with similar stats - or to athletes, or legacies, or regional minorities.</p>
<p>REPLY:
This is an interesting point. At least as I interpret it, you say that minorities make a small part of the application pool, and so even if they were rejected, the chances of white applicants getting admitted wouldn't increase that much. I agree with you. All the same, the chances would increase--by an incremental amount. But the core of my argument isn't about the chances of white/Asians if AA is eliminated...it is about whether the minorities admitted to HYPS have a lower standards imposed on them, and whether they are less qualified than other applicants (I substitute "unqualified" for "less qualified" since admissions are usu. a zero-sum game).</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:
I would see this as problematic if I believed the school were really compromising itself by taking the two URMs. However, suppose one of them really does have great stats. We can always quibble about whether his stats were "better" than everyone else in the pool, but he would have been a reasonable applicant regardless of race. Since college admissions is holistic, and isn't a total stat game, you can't say that every 1560 should get in over every 1510, or every val over every number 5, even if race weren't a factor. So, the college has accepted a student who is virtually equal to white counterparts in the class, even if there are some in the applicant pool who could be percieved asa objectively stronger.</p>
<p>REPLY:
Well, first I would wonder being "virtually equal" is equivalent to being "equal," and whether applicants who are "virtually equal" are AS qualified as one another. While objective stats give one measurement, why is it that minorities nearly ALWAYS have lower objective stats? And even considering a holistic picture, I would argue (at least through my experience at Princeton) that minorities who were admitted did not have any more extracurricular activities than whites/Asians who were admitted. In most cases, I would argue that whites/Asians had more complex and quantitatively more EC's. I can only argue based on objective measures (even if these objective measures include EC's), so if there is some subjective intangible quality that nearly ALWAYS favors minorities, which somehow I can't grasp, I'm afraid I can't address this point.</p>
<p>ICarGirl WRITES:
Maybe the second does have lower stats - a high 1300s SAT, say, and good grades but not many ECs. That person would not have gotten in, ordinarily. But suppose this is a first generation student from a poor family, who maybe didn't go to the best schools. Why is that admission so unfair? I can tell you that its very unlikely that I would have had an 800 verbal if I hadn't been raised by an English teacher. Even becoming a reader in later life wouldn't have compensated for losing out on daily interaction with people with better vocabularies or early exposure to literature. And I can guarantee that I wouldn't have had a 740 Math without months of tutoring - my PSAT was a 660. Basically, my stats are in large part a function of my upbringing. Similarly, would I have gone to good summer programs if my parents hadn't been able to pay for it or saavy enough to realize that these things were out there and valuable for admissions.</p>
<p>REPLY:
Well, first of all, I'm not arguing whether AA is legitimate or not. Rather, I am arguing that minorities in HYPS are less qualified, on the whole, than whites/Asians at HYPS. So, yes, maybe tutoring did help you. But, the fact is, you knew more questions in the SAT when you did take it.</p>
<p>Moreover, I would say that even wealthy minorities who were admitted had lower SAT scores than wealthy whites/Asians who were admitted. So, even with the same resources, they were accepted with lower scores. This is anecdotal, and I'll try to find some links to justify my point. In either case, if the United States wanted to address disadvantage due to poor upbringing, maybe they should boost ALL applicants who have parents with little education (and not just Blacks and Hispanics).</p>
<p>rich URMs r still URM, and fact is unless u just moved here from korea on a boot, u're not URM, even if ur poor as hell u wont get any benefits... and fact is that MANY asians r poor but still excel, and if blacks/hispanics dont, then thats there problem... especially asians get punished cos there supgroup is so strong... i dont see how ppl can continue twisting the facts</p>
<p>cargirl ^totally agree with the summary/recap but totally did not read the rest of it LOL but yah =)</p>
<p>I say "virtually equal" only because no two candidates are ever going to be exactly alike. If HYP wanted to, they could do a completely stats based approach and only admit those with the highest test scores and GPAs. But even when AA isn't being considererd, they don't do that. I'm positive that there were people rejected from Princeton with higher SAT scores and ranks than I had. However, my scores were definately enough to make me very qualified. At that point, whether or not to admit me or a 1600 val came down to a judgment call -essays, recs, special talent. For whatever reason, they picked me. </p>
<p>Take the very first URM on the Harvard early decision thread. He was accepted with a 1510 (old test), a 2 out of 540 rank, 5 perfect AP scores, some work experience, some athletic participation, and community college classes. Now, for Harvard, this wouldn't necessarily be an auto-admit if he were white. However, this student would have been well within Harvard's range, and may well have been accepted, regardless of race. So I'm not too bothered about the fact that his chances were substantially increased by his race. He will be as academically valuable a member of the class as most other students, and his race may just give him perspectives that another white applicant with similar scores would have lacked.</p>