<p>KK - if a university is completely free standing, it should set its own policies.</p>
<p>If a university receives federal monies or its students receive loans and grants with public funds, the university must treat all applicants according to the goals of public policy. Public policy needs to promote fairness for all, not advantages for some based on SKIN COLOR</p>
<p>^ good point</p>
<p>KK</p>
<p>The whole point of AA is to admit the underqualified applicant. The AA applicant does not meet the means of the school. The applicant wants in anyways. They are UNDER the means. Under does not mean equal. Under does not mean over. Under means under. Under is underqualified.</p>
<p>"how can you judge that they ARE as good as the others who apply?"
-They are admitted. That's all the proof I Need.</p>
<p>"Public policy needs to promote fairness for all, not advantages for some based on SKIN COLOR"</p>
<p>-There you go with that 'fairness' thing again.... I don't think poorer students should get more help from the government than the rich. Heck, let's be fair and give EVERYONE the same amount of financial aid, despite income.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
KK</p>
<p>The whole point of AA is to admit the underqualified applicant. The AA applicant does not meet the means of the school. The applicant wants in anyways. They are UNDER the means. Under does not mean equal. Under does not mean over. Under means under. Under is underqualified</p>
<p>^ your contradicting yourself. you agreed with me that SAT scores don't indicate college success. then you said that AA = SAT scores. and now your saying that people with low sat scores are underqualified...</p>
<p>Financial aid is not determined by SKIN COLOR, a racist policy.</p>
<p>"The whole point of AA is to admit the underqualified applicant."</p>
<p>-The point of AA is whatever an individual school says it is- be it economic diversity, racial diversity, geographic diversity, gender diversity... It's not just what YOU say it is. All schools don't function the same way, and neither do their AA policies. </p>
<p>"The AA applicant does not meet the means of the school."</p>
<p>-A 'mean' is not a standard. This argument is silly.</p>
<p>"Financial aid is not determined by SKIN COLOR, a racist policy."</p>
<p>-So now it goes from 'fair' to racist. Circular..... But again, heck, I think looking at economic status is unfair. It's classism- and that's just wrong. All students should get the same amount of tax dollars- it's only the fair thing to do.</p>
<p>See. I can argue 'fairness' too....</p>
<p>Youllsee - I didn't agree that SAT scores are unrelated to college success, I was sharing the opinion of a pair of researchers. For their measures and for their population, they did not find underperformance by the AA population.</p>
<p>I still feel that admitting students with lower test scores because of skin color is racist and that they are underqualified compared to their higher scoring peers. </p>
<p>May the best applicants win, not those with the under-represented coloration.</p>
<p>Also, why is that colleges only use AA at the undergraduate level? They use all this extra criteria such as essays, interviews, ecs, background, high school context etc. in undergraduate admissions, but not in graduate admissions. I think most would agree that graduate school admission is far more important than undergrad. So, isn't it amazing that colleges actually rely on a basic formula, grades and standardized scores, for the most part? And if urms are really as qualified as orms, then why are there so few urms who are professionals in comparison to orms?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"how can you judge that they ARE as good as the others who apply?"
-They are admitted. That's all the proof I Need.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So let's make a statement here. A given admitted URM is a stronger overall applicant than every single student that was rejected. Really? Every single one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
-There you go with that 'fairness' thing again.... I don't think poorer students should get more help from the government than the rich.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't support aid. However, that still does not detract from the focus that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are still in a worse position. Quite frankly, that's still not fair. But hey, life's not fair. At least admit it instead of trying to distort the actual definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heck, let's be fair and give EVERYONE the same amount of financial aid, despite income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not only unfair (because some of these recipients won't even NEED the aid), it's also not very practical.</p>
<p>Of course a mean is a standard. Duh. Didn't you choose where to apply based on means?</p>
<p>We could definitely talk about aid on another thread, but this is about race, not aid.</p>
<p>In post 153, kollegkid cited an incredibly damning article against the myth of similarly qualified applicants. Whats more, the source of this article is the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.</p>
<p>According to the article, in 2006, black students made up only ONE percent of all students scoring 700 or higher on math and only 1.6 percent of all students scoring 700 or higher on the verbal section.</p>
<p>In absolute numbers, its 976 and 1,117, respectively. Less than 1,000 black students had scores of 700 or greater on both sections of the test.</p>
<p>There are many universities in our nation where scores of 700 per section place students in the middle 50% of incoming freshmen. How can all of these universities satisfy their goals and targets with 1,000 students to choose from? They cant.</p>
<p>Of course, SAT scores arent everything. I recognize that. And, AP scores arent everything, either.</p>
<p>But there is one thing that I do not buy, namely, that these under-represented minority students are just so much more interesting than their white and Asian peers that their spark and leadership qualities can make up for relatively lower test scores.</p>
<p>you're completely contradicting yourself kk. </p>
<p>no logic at all, so let's see all your illogical ignorant posts one by one.</p>
<ol>
<li>""how can you judge that they ARE as good as the others who apply?"
-They are admitted. That's all the proof I Need."</li>
</ol>
<p>Do you read English? they're arguing underqualified urms (i personally disagree, i think qualified urms but not as qualified as many rejected orms) are ACCEPTED. then u say they're admitted so it's the proof.
this is the most RIDICULOUS post EVER and the most ILLOGICAL statement ever.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Fairness. according to dictionary.com, fairness is:
free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice
if it's "free from bias, or injustice" how is it relative?</p></li>
<li><p>Pleas tell me what's wrong w/ colleges hypothetically using social-economic AA. social-economic status is what is "disadvantaged" not "skin color.
Please, kk, please tell me why. dont give me college can freely pick ppl crap. if so, they should admit their policy is arbituary and they get to admit whoever they want, instead of LYING.</p></li>
<li><p>you'llsee, please point out ONE flaw w/ social-economic AA. you're Pro-AA argument is completely different from kk, dont blindly agree just b/c he makes a relatively better argument than you (although it's still completely illogical and flawed).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"So let's make a statement here. A given admitted URM is a stronger overall applicant than every single student that was rejected. Really? Every single one?"</p>
<p>-I'm not saying that anyone is stronger....Even though I could.... The main point is that I can't even make that distinction. The very fact that the school chose to admit the student instead of reject him is enough proof for me that the person was qualified. The same goes for the person who had a perfect SAT score and is rejected- if he wasn't accepted it's because the adcom decided he wasn't 'qualified' enough for admission. </p>
<p>"that still does not detract from the focus that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are still in a worse position."</p>
<p>-Why? Because you say so?</p>
<p>"That's not only unfair (because some of these recipients won't even NEED the aid), it's also not very practical"</p>
<p>-Sure it's fair. EVERYONE should be treated equally, right? Then EVERYONE should get the same amount of aid, despite their financial status. This is the same kind of argument people are making about AA.</p>
<p>"Of course a mean is a standard."</p>
<p>-No it is not.</p>
<p>This is pointless. I am going to go EARN some money so I can PAY for my education without aid. Then, I am going to study for my PSATs since no one is going to give me a BREAK and admit me under special rules when I apply to college.</p>
<p>"Do you read English"</p>
<p>-Reading and understand are two different things. If you are going to insult me, the least you can do is do it correctly.</p>
<p>"they're arguing underqualified urms (i personally disagree, i think qualified urms but not as qualified as many rejected orms) are ACCEPTED."</p>
<p>-Colleges decide what is 'qualified' or not. Arguments that one applicant is less-qualified is to be left up to the school. If a person is not accepted, he is not qualified. </p>
<p>"if it's "free from bias, or injustice" how is it relative?"</p>
<p>-Because both bias and injustice are relative.... If 'fairness' hinges on those things, then it is left up to the individual to decide. Injustice to one person may not be injustice to the next. </p>
<p>"Pleas tell me what's wrong w/ colleges hypothetically using social-economic AA."</p>
<p>-I don't think anything's wrong with it. I think a college should pick people how it chooses. I just want it to be known that 'socio' ecnonomics is not the same thing as just economic status. In the former, a wealthy person could benefit from AA, in the latter, not.</p>
<p>"dont give me college can freely pick ppl crap."</p>
<p>-It's not "crap" just because you say so. </p>
<p>"if so, they should admit their policy is arbituary and they get to admit whoever they want, instead of LYING"</p>
<p>I think it's pretty well-known that (private) colleges admit pretty much whoever they want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
-So now it goes from 'fair' to racist. Circular..... But again, heck, I think looking at economic status is unfair. It's classism- and that's just wrong. All students should get the same amount of tax dollars- it's only the fair thing to do.</p>
<p>See. I can argue 'fairness' too....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We've all pointed out that the big thing hold up socioeconomic preferences is that poverty does not discriminate. The original intent of affirmative action was and is still very noble. But when the system changes such that you have quite frankly, socioeconomically advantaged groups that take advantage of the policy, then you have to change with the times. I am confident that the American people will see through the current AA system. The Supreme Court already has, as have many voters in notably blue states.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All students should get the same amount of tax dollars- it's only the fair thing to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would no question, be fair. As is judging people without regards to racial AND socioeconomic preferences. However, we're just advocating socioeconomic preferences as a FAR MORE suitable method. Of course it's not fair. But it's a heck of a lot better than what we have now with affirmative action.</p>
<p>"since no one is going to give me a BREAK and admit me under special rules when I apply to college."</p>
<p>-You are a female, no? Apply to one of several engineering schools that uses gender-specific AA, and I guarantee you, you will get a boost. AA is not ONLY about race. This only shows just how little you actually know about the program.</p>