<p>… because name-calling is always a great ingredient in reasonable discussions.</p>
<p>C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!! </p>
<p>Anyways, I’m accepted. I’ll see everyone next fall at NSOP, get excited.</p>
<p>Sorry for not copying that huge thing and filling it out.</p>
<p>Phil</p>
<p>Because that is what race based admissions is. They hold certain groups to a lower standard because of their race. </p>
<p>“How superficial is that?”</p>
<p>It’s not. Saying “that person is a different color than I am so they must be different” is superficial. Superficial is not looking beyond the surface of a person, e.i. the color of their skin, and making decisions based on that. Maybe if you looked deeper into their lives, you would see they aren’t so different. </p>
<p>Sure there are differences in culture, there are differences in culture between everyone. Japanese and Chinese have different cultures, what does that have to do with their ability to do well in school? </p>
<p>“You’re missing out on a very basic reason colleges are still allowed to use race in their admissions decisions.”</p>
<p>What is that reason exactly?</p>
<p>“You’re telling me that I cannot safely generalize that African Americans have an African American background”</p>
<p>First of all, no you can’t. An African American child from a Caribbean family would have a different background than a child from an African background than a child who is 8th generation American. There isn’t an “African American” background.</p>
<p>What you can’t generalize is that every child of a particular race faces horrible hardships and gets made fun off for doing well in school. It’s simply not true and is a stereotype. How are a 8th generation American black child who grew up next to an 8th generation American white child and went to the same school any different? Because of the color of their skin? </p>
<p>“You think colleges don’t encourage kids from all backgrounds to succeed.”</p>
<p>By saying “if you are a certain color, you can aim for less than everyone else but get the same result” colleges are discouraging minority students from succeeding among their peers, not just their race. </p>
<p>“I’m still waiting for the easy refutation.”</p>
<p>For what? For compensatory admissions?</p>
<p>@T2</p>
<p>I never directed any of my anger at the people inside the groups. In fact, I feel bad for them sometimes. There are some genuinely smart minority kids who get into college based on merit, but will never get the respect they deserve because people will always assume they got in because of their race. </p>
<p>I am angry at a system that thinks racism is ok. The problem with the “pooling” system is that it assumes being a certain race is an achievement like being an amazing musician or an outstanding athlete. Being born into a particular race isn’t an achievement, you didn’t have to endlessly rehearse it or spend hours on the field practicing to be a minority. Therefore, it isn’t an achievement.</p>
<p>It’s no more of an achievement than administrators saying they want a 50 piece orchestra versus a 35 piece orchestra. The former decision will require more set asides for musicians, the latter, less. If a private college wants a target of X% students of one race in its freshman class, I see nothing wrong in that nor do I consider it reverse discrimination.</p>
<p>And the pooling system, (which is reality BTW) requires all admitees to meet a minimum standard. But one can easily understand why a non-pooled admitees would have a higher avg ACT or SAT – just because there is more to choose from. But I’m not going to convince you of any innocence in this system. </p>
<p>You may want to dismiss the system but the fact is that one of the things that makes the so-called “prestigious” colleges so attractive is that they bring in an incredibly diverse student body-- not just those applicants with the highest GPA/test scores. These very students are a large part of the school’s “greatness” – yet you’d propose they adopt admissions akin to IIT or Seoul University or Beijing University.</p>
<p>The funny thing is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF COLLEGES in the US admit students JUST LIKE IIT, Seoul or Beijing. They admit solely based on stats and stats alone. But they seem to be mysterious absent from those USNWR magazine lists. Hmmmm</p>
<p>Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I would think.</p>
<p>sigh…that sure is a lot of bull to contradict.</p>
<p>Agh. I was going to stop. I really was. Well, let’s go down the list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol no one ever gets my name right :P</p>
<p>I incorrectly assumed a consensus, it seems. Sorry about that. </p>
<p>Race-based anti-URM policies have no basis besides race. They are literally racist, instead of what anti-AA dudes think is racism. Affirmative action is not morally equivalent to racial discrimination for a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is a policy of inclusion, not exclusion. It’s a policy based on an educationally sound and well-founded interest in achieving class diversity — not just so that all races share equality of opportunity, but because being around people different from you make you a better person — rather than on an educationally unsound and unfounded distaste for undesirables. It’s a policy completely in harmony with the institutional goals of all of America’s top universities — to change the world through education — rather than discordant and unreasonable.</p>
<p>The racists of yon might argue similar things, but the difference is that they would be wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>It’s as if you’re reading an entirely different thread. No one owes anyone anything. It’s a matter of what we as a people — or universities, more specifically — want to give. Colleges and universities are interested in educating a diverse group of students and use that diversity as a tool to do it. Affirmative action’s the only way around right now to do this effectively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no reason to. Seems internment camps didn’t really affect the Japanese applicant pool like hundreds of years of slavery, little-to-no education, and cultural isolation did. If it did, you could be sure tjat we would do the same for the Japanese. </p>
<p>We do the same for Hispanics, though no one ever focuses on them. It’s not because we feel guilt toward them. We just value diversity. For really good reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is hilarious.</p>
<p>You are suggesting that anyone thinks the actually significant differences between racial groups are biological. The fact is that differences come from two things, one part wonderful and the other part arbitrary:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>People from different races have diverse ethnic backgrounds. Every person you meet comes packed with a heritage. Despite complaints about American culture overshadowing others, the world’s — and our nation’s — heterogeneity is still pretty profound. And this is one of our greatest strengths. Asians have a variety of asian cultures distinct in many dramatic and interesting ways from other types of ethnic groups. Blacks do, too, an effect amplified by their diaspora throughout the Americas. Even Whites bring something to the table — something every American learns about every year he takes history. We all have a different heritage, something highlighted by our different musical styles, different ideas about life and God, different values. And being exposed to these is part of what makes a Great American university.</p></li>
<li><p>People from different races are looked at differently. This is the arbitrary one, but unfortunately very important for a person’s background. Blacks, Asians, and Whites still have a tendency to be treated and thought of in a certain way by those around them in every culture. Stereotypes abound that make Blacks appear to non-Blacks (for example, white police officers) as more likely to commit a crime, or Asians to seem to others hypercompetitive and math-geeky. It’s even been shown through scientific research that these stereotypes are hardwired into all of us, even those of the offended groups, because of the socialization that occurs around us. Living in a world where people think of you differently because of your skin color is another way race makes a difference.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Columbia, despite getting federal funding, is still pretty independent. Sure, it must not break the law, but other than that, it’s free to for any reason at all bring in 20 trombone players each year or 200. But really, no one is arguing that people can do whatever they want or that this is a reason for allowing affirmative action.</p>
<p>The basic idea is that if you object so vigorously to a university’s interest in diversity, you might be more comfortable attending to some other school. But that’s a red herring. Unrelated to the argument.</p>
<p>vivian, later. maybe.</p>
<p>I didn’t read much of the thread, but here’s food for thought (if it hasn’t been presented already). Instead of all the arguments about race, why not just skew affirmative action towards the POOR? The reason most blacks are admitted is because they are seen as a class that has struggled from poverty or other disadvantages. If affirmative action favored the poor, a large portion of blacks would STILL be favored. Additionally, the poor Asians, who have it just as badly if not worse than blacks, latinos, etc., will also have an advantage. I think economic diversity is much more important than racial diversity. After all, who will learn more from each other? Two suburban rich kids who happened to be of different races, or two kids of the same race, one from a 40k family and another from a 150k family?</p>
<p>This thread has become a train wreck I can’t stop watching. :/</p>
<p>To your point, LilBub, if AA is overturned by the Supremes, it’s expected elite universities will make use of “data mining.” For anybody still reading…</p>
<p>[Supreme</a> Court Affirmative Action Ruling Could Give Rise To Data Mining | The New Republic](<a href=“Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling Could Give Rise to Data Mining | The New Republic”>Supreme Court Affirmative Action Ruling Could Give Rise to Data Mining | The New Republic)</p>
<p>And now I really am finished, promise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re different types of diversity. But relying on socioeconomic diversity is not a good substitute at all since most poor people are white.</p>
<p>Besides, admitting just poor blacks won’t do well for stereotype-breaking at all.</p>
<p>According to the 2010 census on people who are 18 or younger in poverty ([National</a> Poverty Center | University of Michigan](<a href=“http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/]National”>» Poverty Facts)), blacks and whites are virtually equal in number while there are a thousand more Hispanics under poverty. Percentage-wise, almost 40% of blacks are poor. If we went by a socioeconomic system for affirmative action, there would not be a great change in who is admitted. Additionally, it’ll be more fair, seeing as there still is almost 14% of Asians who too are also living under poverty. It would be totally unjust to deny an underprivileged Asian and admit a rich black student, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>Stereotype-breaking? Don’t go there. Affirmative action is notorious for mismatching, which happens when students are placed into schools that are too difficult for him or her. Without affirmative action, a student will be accepted into a university that fits their academic ability. Top schools, however, frequently use affirmative action to create a diverse campus. An incapable student accepted into a difficult school by means of affirmative action may not be able to maintain a decent G.P.A. and may ultimately drop out. According to the LA Times ([Does</a> affirmative action hurt minorities? - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-sander26sep26,0,6466017.story]Does”>http://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-sander26sep26,0,6466017.story)) “research shows that 50% of black law students end up in the bottom 10th of their class, and that they are more than twice as likely to drop out as white students. Only one in three black students who start law school graduate and pass the bar on their first attempt; most never become lawyers.” A 2004 study by University of California, Los Angeles’s Richard H. Sander, titled “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools,” echoes these negatives, reporting that there are 7.9% fewer black attorneys than there would have been if there was no affirmative action, and that mismatching makes blacks more likely to drop out of law school and fail exams. Affirmative action is ultimately hurting these minority students, placing them in schools they cannot keep up with. That ends up instilling doubt and lowering the values of minorities. In his book, Dinesh D’Souza addresses this perception pretty nicely:
*
With blacks… there remains a widespread suspicion that they might be intellectually inferior. Far from dispelling this suspicion, affirmative action strengthens it. Affirmative action conveys the message that “this group is incapable of making it on its own merits.” Such preferences devalue black achievement, and they intensify doubts about black capacity… Racial preferences are a distraction… They create the illusion that blacks are performing poorly due to racism. By rigging the race in favor of blacks, affirmative action policies prevent African Americans, and society I general, from doing the hard and necessary work of building African American cultural skills so that blacks can compete effectively with whites and other groups. (D’Souza 98)
*
Affirmative action creates the impression that minorities earn degrees with the help of affirmative action, that they may not be capable of gaining it without aid. The view that their race rather than their merit earned them their degrees diminishes the value that society places on them.</p>
<p>I didn’t want my post to be so long, but if you think affirmative action BREAKS stereotypes… Well, I had to address that. Do you know who affirmative action ultimately benefits anyway? White women. In the end, it doesn’t even help the URMs like it should. If you don’t believe me, search it up.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty decent point, dude.</p>
<p>The second part. The part about socioeconomic affirmative action is incorrect. Socioeconomic affirmative action primarily benefits poor whites. Which is not the point of affirmative action.</p>
<p>You try to assert that AA makes a degree seem illegitimate, but as you indicate, AA only gets a student into a school; it does not affect his performance. So the idea that there’s an impression that minorities earn degrees with that help is false.</p>
<p>Those examples are cases of affirmative action taken to imprudent extremes. Law schools should pay more attention to the competence of the individuals they admit, not necessarily eliminate AA.</p>
<p>Besides, URM graduation rates at colleges are pretty darned close to those of other groups. At the collegiate level, mismatch is not an actual problem.</p>
<p>You know what? I think you’re right. Ish.</p>
<p>A few months ago, I watched an episode of the Cosby show where a woman announced that she was a graduate of Princeton University and thereafter was represented as a figure to look up to, a role model. She certainly was, but the first thing that came to my mind was “affirmative action” and that thought — it completely spoiled the whole moment, and began a period of doubt about what people who don’t know me well might think if I do end up at an Ivy League college and they learn of it. Like in that moment, their first thought might not be “wow” but “affirmative action” and instead of praise I would earn scorn or cyncism. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that socioeconomic status is enough of a boost to rich blacks in college admissions. The affirmative action is already there and sufficiently motivated black students with those resources have no excuse to perform at a lower level than other students. Cultural capital, be damned.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic AA may not bring as many blacks into top colleges, but it would bring in the right ones — the ones I’ve been arguing for. And while it’s easier for a poor white or poor asian to succeed academically than a poor black, bringing more of these into the mix would be nearly as good.</p>
<p>It would be rewarding merit where merit is due and truly confront other students with issues of diversity that they can’t dismiss with the cynicism that affirmative action has the tendency to evoke. It would make affirmative action, itself, colorblind, permitting its beneficial effects while curtailing reputational one.</p>
<p>And those who do succeed, those who actually do overcome the limitations of their backgrounds, be it race or class or both — they would be able to take their places at top colleges without shame — and their positions of leadership in America without that elitist perspective. Universities would be unequivocally instead of indirectly effecting realizations of the American dream.</p>
<hr>
<p>There are some issues, though.</p>
<p>Mismatch would still be a huge problem, so schools would have to devote many resources to helping toward graduation and success those they admit.</p>
<p>And race issues would still go untouched. Affirmative action hasn’t been helping much, though. Du Bois’s top ten percent just won’t arise artificially — by any hand but their own. Intervention will have to be done at some other point by those who make it and still care about those who don’t.</p>
<p>Ugh. I might change my mind back. But this seems okay atm.</p>
<p>“Do you know who affirmative action ultimately benefits anyway? White women.”</p>
<p>In college admissions? In what year are you talking about? While that was probably true several decades ago, it hasn’t been the case for quite some time. Women have made enormous gains and are now over-represented on college campuses OR their admission has been depressed.</p>
<p>As of 2006:
"Two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants, and more than 56 percent of undergraduates nationwide are women. Demographers predict that by 2009, only 42 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in the United States will be given to men. "</p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | To All the Girls I've Rejected - The New York Times”>Opinion | To All the Girls I've Rejected - The New York Times;
<p>Affirmative action may have helped our mothers, but their daughters are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>@Sunny
I’m talking about affirmative action in general, not just strictly reserved to college admissions.</p>
<p>@Philovitist
Where are you getting your data for socioeconomic affirmative action benefiting whites? I can’t just agree to something unless you have evidence to support your claim.</p>
<p>Mismatching would not be as much of a problem. I am quite sure that a student who comes from an impoverished background and gets a 2100 on their SAT is capable of doing just as well if not better than a privileged person who earns a 2300. Both scores indicate aptitude, the second just probably with a bit of tutoring. When someone demonstrates skill despite their hardships, he/she should be given a hand, regardless of race. When someone who happens to be URM demonstrates adequate skill but comes from middle class suburban background, he/she should not be given an advantage over similar non-URMs. It just makes sense. Is it fair for a rich black kid to get admitted over a poor white when they have the same credentials? It isn’t (or at least I don’t think so), but unfortunately some colleges do end up accepting the black kid, more frequently than we’d like to believe too. But back to mismatching, I don’t think the problem would be as prevalent because the students accepted will be determined and will want to do well. A student given admission based on merit rather than race will have a different mindset that contributes to their success. For example, I know several privileged kids who believe they deserve everything they want. They’ve been spoiled rotten and have legacy connections to certain schools, so they expect things to come easily to them. I don’t know if they’ll be admitted, but their views are completely different than that of a hardworking student from the lower class. Of course, I don’t want to generalize this notion to everyone in the middle class (seeing as I belong in that group), but it is true that a good portion of suburban children have this spoiled mindset. I believe that in college, they just won’t be up to par with the students who are actually diligent and who come from a background where they understand how important it is to work hard.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m not here to change anyone’s minds. I just wanted to assert that the belief that affirmative action combats stereotypes is just plain wrong (but clearly I’m off topic haha). I’m glad you have realized that it actually promotes sterotypes. And of course, a socioeconomic system is flawed, but I think it would definitely be better than what we have now.</p>