<p>I'd have no problem with providing lower socioeconomic kids with SAT study guides so that they could compete, if that makes a difference. After all, we know that any "idiot" can score 2300+ with the use of study guides. </p>
<p>AA assumes that some racial groups are unable to score 2300 and thus need special reductions in standards.</p>
<p>AA cheapens the Ivy league franchise.</p>
<p>norcalguy..if i recall, the boy from my school who was accepted to brown wore the same pair of sneakers for two years.......don't try to make assumptions like that, because you are on the outside looking in...you have no idea what it's like to be on the inside of the house.</p>
<p>"and if the two go hand in hand, why dont we do AA based on social-econ status? that will include poor whites and orms and exclude rich urms.
What a great way to kill 10000 birds w/ one hand!! compared to the lousy and flawed system Harvard is using now!"</p>
<p>this totally destroys your pro-AA arguement for
"fabizio, unfortunately yes. but i hope to someday get to a point where race and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with each other. but as of right now, that's not the case."</p>
<p>why not use a system that has pros and no cons, rather than one that has loopholes?</p>
<p>^ b/c the world's not perfect....sorry:(</p>
<p>social-economics AA is perfect.</p>
<p>well, close to perfect than race-based AA</p>
<p>^ no it's not.....b/c than there's the issue of where to draw the line</p>
<p>ex. 60,000 vs. 70,000</p>
<p>also, number of siblings, health status, etc.......</p>
<p>lol you really are ignorant.</p>
<p>same w/ financial aid, when colleges give out financial aid, they dont just look at the income number</p>
<p>they take in a billion other factors w/ a complicated financial aid calculation lol</p>
<p>The point of race-based AA is NOT to provide an admissions boost for those of lower economic statuses. It is to raise the percentage of a certain <em>gasp</em> RACIAL group at a college. This is why middle-class minorities also tend to benefit from AA programs at various schools. </p>
<p>If the purpose were simply to give a boost to those of lower incomes, then of course colleges would make it so. You don't have to be a minority to be poor....</p>
<p>It come down to one question- do you believe a college should be able to pick the student body it wants? Yes or no. Do you believe that racial diversity is a legitimate goal for a school to have. If not, then you probably don't support race-based AA and never will, so arguing is futile. </p>
<p>People love to say who is or is not 'qualified' to be in a school, but the ONLY group that can say this is the colleges themselves. They set the standards. They conduct the admissions.</p>
<p>socioeconomic AA makes so much more sense</p>
<p>i never say urms aren't qualified.
they're just much lesss qualified than orms.
PERIOD</p>
<p>"they take in a billion other factors w/ a complicated financial aid calculation lol"</p>
<p>-And race can't be one of those factors? </p>
<p>Despite what you believe, economic AA is NOT the perfect solution, as it does not address the PROBLEM that colleges want solved. If they want a higher percentage of a certain racial group/s, the ONLY way to guarantee that they get said percentage is to target that group/s.</p>
<p>besides, if it's all about race,</p>
<p>all the SAT preparation crap and minorities come from worse backgrounds crap is all POINTLESS</p>
<p>every pro-AA has so many contradicting arguments and claims it's funny how ppl smart as elite college admissions officers dont find it funny</p>
<p>yes but we're all saying that (kk19131) ^^^ isn't fair..</p>
<p>Ok... quick economics lesson. Who can tell me what 'socio' economics actually is????</p>
<p>"all the SAT preparation crap and minorities come from worse backgrounds crap is all POINTLESS"</p>
<p>-Those are ridiculous arguments- and are not ones made by me.</p>
<p>"every pro-AA has so many contradicting arguments and claims it's funny how ppl smart as elite college admissions officers dont find it funny"</p>
<p>-My only argument is that a college should be able to pick the student body it wants, and if it wants an AA program of some kind, so be it.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics%5B/url%5D%5B/B%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics</a></p>
<p>and i'm just saying that colleges picking student bodies based on race isn't fair</p>
<p>well, in that case, i think they should stop the political-correctness and ADMIT they accept whoever they want, and not make a false illusion of meritocracy. unfortunately, no college have the GUTS to face the truth and admit it out loud to the outside world</p>
<p>hope the adcoms show some more GUTS
and be truthful, as every mom tells her 3-year-old child.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
they're just much lesss qualified than orms.</p>
<p>you confusing "qualification" with " advantage".</p>
<p>you can't comprehend, your wrong. the correct statement is...</p>
<p>they're just more disadvantaged than orms.</p>
<p>btw, can't u look it up in a dictionary or wiki or NWU's lib?
you're a elite college student, i'm sure you have more resources regarding that than most ppl</p>
<p>Of course lower SAT scorers are less able. SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test.
Aptitude, by definition, is ability:
"ap·ti·tude (ăp'tĭ-tūd', -tyūd')
n.
An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See synonyms at ability.
Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness."
<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/aptitude?cat=biz-fin%5B/url%5D">http://www.answers.com/topic/aptitude?cat=biz-fin</a></p>