outraged at affirmative action

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
41

<p>I think the main thing is that the people who are admitted into these good schools should be people who would have been admitted if AA did not exist. The problem is that, unfortunately, sometimes, those who would otherwise not have been admitted are because AA gave them that boost. (I agree with gshak13 - I think ColumbiaDiva deserved it, too.)</p>

<p>And I agree with smileygerl. There’s nothing we can really do about the system; we’re outside of it, and as a result, we’re subjected to it. If you work at the admissions office, then you should try to change it from the inside. But as it now stands, especially for those currently applying, we just have to do our best on our essays & ECs, and other parts of the application that we DO have control over.
No point in wasting time whining when that time could be used to do something that would make your app better.</p>

42

<p>@gshak: Yes I do, and thank you for posting that. </p>

<p>I just think that all people should remember that there are way more circumstances other than race (a man-made idea at its core) that define someone. That’s why I say that people should worry about the message and energy they send to the school rather than the money they have or the color of their skin. Crying AA has the power to belittle people so much (trust me!) so just have faith that merit will rule in the end.</p>

43

<p>Drop thinking about it from your own perspective or from that of underrepresented minorities.</p>

<p>Think about why and how Columbia the institution will benefit from such a policy.</p>

<p>Columbia can afford to admit hoards of candidates of questionable academic ability and intelligence, whether they are legacies or URMs, because these beneficiaries of preference can continue to rely on an American society and American systems that are willing to overlook their shortcomings and reward them in spite of these faults. These persons will occupy the lower and middle echelons of the Wall Street work force, a place where they will be out of the way and cause little trouble–even serve as valuable networking resources for future graduates. And, if even one of their number proves himself or herself capable, Columbia can ride on his or her accomplishments. Of course, Columbia earns popular and political favor for pretending to care about creating a diverse class and then for actually creating one.</p>

<p>Columbia would not have instituted such a policy and would not continue to practice it if she did not believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. When one considers the bigger picture from Columbia’s perspective, one cannot help but admire the cleverness and the foresight of its administrators.</p>

44

<p>kwu, you’re giving the Columbia administration way too much credit. The “cleverness” and “foresight” you describe is present at every other elite educational system in America.</p>

45

<p>Those of you who somehow think that a person with a 2100 SAT is somehow unqualified for Columbia and admitted only because of race don’t even have a clue as to how high level college admissions, including Columbia, actually works. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the person described in the opening post needed any sort of AA boost. There are just a bunch of ignorant high school wannabes who somehow think that Columbia is making admission decisions based on comparing raw test scores. </p>

<p>They don’t do that. They never did. They consider test scores in context. “In context” doesn’t just mean race – it also means in the context of the school the person is coming from, and includes geographical and regional factors. </p>

<p>There are white and Asian students who get into Columbia and other top schools with test scores that are in the bottom 25%. (1/4th of all students admitted to any school have test scores that are in the bottom 25%). They get in because they have the right stuff in other respects.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that they have racked up a whole laundry list of EC’s and special awards, either. College ad coms don’t like <em>quantity</em> in EC’s, they like <em>quality</em>. They know that high schoolers sign up for a whole array of activities just to impress colleges, and they probably know exactly which EC’s are most likely done for that reason and give very little credence to those. So they are much more likely to be impressed by someone who has a handful of EC’s, but clearly has pursued them consistently, with commitment and passion. </p>

<p>They are also looking for a diversity of interests in their class, and that is where it is very hard to draw conclusions about college admissions. A student may get a leg up on admissions simply because they happen to be <em>different</em> in one way or another, perhaps in a way that the student doesn’t even know is important. </p>

<p>But here’s what Columbia - and other Ivies – do NOT want: they don’t want students who blame their own shortcomings on “unfairness” or claims that others are favored over them. That is a loser attitude, and the top schools don’t want students with loser attitudes. Realistically, it’s hard for them to spot that attitude and exclude those students, though it might show up from time to time in the tone of a student’s essay or in comments made in letters of recommendation. </p>

<p>But for the most part there is no way for them to know. We can see it here – the poster who writes “My chances of getting into Columbia are slim to none, simply because I’m X.” has that attitude. The person who expresses that thought is handicapping themselves, from the get go --he (or she) had convinced himself that (a) he is going to lose, and (b) when he loses, it is through some demographic factor for which he bears no responsibility or control. That attitude can simply become part of a litany of excuses the person makes for his own failings every step through life. </p>

<p>There is no shortage of people in this world with that attitude. The sad thing is simply that they are too dense to realize that it is their own attitude, manifested in a variety of things that they say and do, that ends up being the reason that they are often at a competitive disadvantage with others. They end up making a negative impression on the people who have influence over the future course of their lives.</p>

<p>I honestly think that if everyone could read the LOR’s that accompany college apps, a lot of the mystery about the rejections of high-stat apps would be removed.</p>

46

<p>OP, get over it. you exhibit a complete lack of sensitivity for any of the subtler ways that URM, single-parent, immigrant status affects opportunity. to make your point you describe her as an incessant grade-grubber. that’s totally irrelevant. i would be willing to bet that the majority of any highly competitive colleges class is composed of people with a similar approach to high-school academics. why? surprising as it may be, they tend to get higher grades. from a slightly different perspective, too, such behavior could easily be presented as/considered extreme motivation and hard work. if you want to complain that high school academics don’t present an accurate picture of academic potential because they favor the obnoxious, that’s a different argument, which here you seem intent on injecting race into. 2100 is not a terrible score, well within columbia’s middle 50%. in my eyes she seems intelligent and driven, with a unique story and perspective to bring to the school. and this is coming from a 2370 (if you insist on using sat scores as a metric for being qualified) caucasian student with many opportunities and a fortunate childhood who was deferred. i believe strongly that this girl deserved to be accepted much, much, much more than i did, and i am personally glad that they chose her over me, if that’s an accurate way of looking at the issue.</p>

<p>moreover, you make the mistake of equating the ideas that affirmative action is a distinctly flawed system and that it is wrong. affirmative action exists as a way to artificially level the playing field for those who are historically, statistically at a disadvantage, and for the time at least it must exist, however crude a system it may be. i disagree with it on the principal that it is largely used as a substitute for real, substantial change in our educational system and for truly bringing equality. instead of trying to improve inner-city schools, for instance, or close the socioeconomic gap that minorities face, schools simply give URMs a slight advantage in the process. on the other hand, affirmative action is one way to work towards socioeconomic equality. it gives minorities the opportunity to gain prestigious degrees and high paying jobs and break the cycle of poverty that they have been forced into for the past few decades/centuries. for this reason, i support it. i also accept that it is imperfect. i could be wrong, but one unintended consequence of need-blind admissions is that is difficult for admissions officers to actually consider the specifics of an applicants economic situation. as such, they are forced to make certain generalizations. hawkdancer, i really hope that you get accepted. i hope that you used the additional information section wisely to provide more detailed information about your situation. that colleges are seemingly forced to put asians at a disadvantage (and i know this is an oversimplification, sorry) for the sake of diversity is sad and a complex issue that i simply don’t know enough about to discuss. however, i know that someone with high stats and great extracurriculars from a wealthy background and at a great school with encouraging parents will rightfully not be considered in the same light as someone with the same stats from a more disadvantaged background. context matters, everyone should be glad that colleges make such important distinctions. </p>

<p>anyway, OP, stop hating. resentment will get you nowhere. if you are truly passionate about this issue, perhaps you should consider launching a career in education reform, or at least educate yourself a bit more, instead of ignorantly criticizing the issue from the outside with apparently very little knowledge or desire for knowledge about the nuances and complexities of the issue.</p>

47

<p>^Ditto: I’m an HYP alum who is Chinese American and my SATs were just above the 25th percentile of admitted students my year. Honestly I think I was admitted b/c of my unusual story (top leader in an all Black high school & top level transcript). Did I take the spot of some 2350 Korean kid from Palo Alto? I dunno. But I also know there there were probably several dozen top scoring Asians who were rejected since they aren’t uncommon – whereas my story made me compelling to my college – and all the other Ivies and top engineering colleges that I applied to since they all accepted me.</p>

<p>It’s complete within the purview of Columbia to admit whom they want as they see the larger institutional goals. You want meritocracy? Look to your state schools. I’m sure all the top scholars will be offered admissions.</p>

<p>But here’s the rub: Columbia enjoys its status as one of the nation’s top colleges because of its admissions policies --not despite them. You want them to admit purely based on SATs/GPA? Then watch their ranking sink.</p>

48

<p>I couldn’t have said it better AxelNofz.</p>

49

<p>Has anyone else noticed that the OP has yet to add any other comments on this thread? Sounds to me like the OP is just trying to get everyone upset. It is very clear that AA is a touchy issue on CC; there is no use beating a dead horse. Get over it OP and stop being such a hater.</p>

50

<p>haha, agreed…</p>

<p>affirmative was originally implemented as an institution that attempted to redeem for past discriminations (african americans) but now its just pretty much evolved into a way to ensure that the colleges that practice it (pretty much every top university) has an adequate level of diversity, which helps with development, learning, surviving in the real world, etc.</p>

<p>of course, that puts a lot of burden on the “non-hooked” applicants, but I guess you just gotta work through that with unique essays and recs lol</p>

51

<p>Here’s my post from another thread:</p>

<p>“If you’re that saccharine goody goody student who goes into girl/boy scouts when they’re 6, becomes the president of like 5 clubs, wins a bunch of science awards, practices from the 7th grade to get a 2400 on the SAT, etc, etc… ALL without having the passion for what you’re doing, you are RIDICULOUS. Don’t think that just because you have a bunch of ECs and test scores, the Ivies won’t look at your character. A laundry list of awards and ec’s means nothing compared to true character, and that’s why students get accepted each year, who lack those pretenses. AND they are NOT less deserving than those laundry-list students, but they have a quality that shows that they are passionate about what they do and plan to do. I have an Asian friend who got into Yale with low 2100’s on the SAT, no awards, and no “prestigous” EC’s. However, he loved the EC’s he had because they were directed towards his passion in life, and that’s a big part of why he got accepted”</p>

52

<p>i will add one piece of context that folks don’t often think about.</p>

<p>admissions is not about merit - or at least we should say it is not ‘only’ about merit.</p>

<p>students are admitted for various reasons, some because of the promise they have, others because of the achievements they have offered, yet others because of what they will add to the community. some students are admitted because of the opportunity it will give them. </p>

<p>one only becomes ‘outraged’ when we presume that every student is admitted for the same reason, with the same metric and with the same expectations.</p>

<hr>

<p>and a final comment. like any business or venture, admissions is susceptible to fraud and waste, the admissions officers try their best to minimize this, but there will always be an anecdote of a student that conned his/her way through the process. if we live in anecdotes, we are bound also to be outraged or become irrational in our view of admissions. the fact we must remember is that most students admitted are admitted because of the profile they present and not because of any cheating. or at least that is the faith we must hold in the process.</p>

53

<p>i have a question though- i do have a laundry list of extracurriculars (many of which i have leadership positions in), and very few that relate to what i want to be- not because i didnt want to join science related teams but because my school offers only one (which im co-captain of). </p>

<p>however, i do really enjoy <em>most</em> of the activities i participate in. and by most i mean there are like 2 that i dont. and i dont participate in those two to add them to my resume but rather because i was encouraged to join them (im a pretty good speaker). </p>

<p>do you think the columbia adcom would be able to see that? or would they have a cynical view?</p>

54

<p>Overachiever92, while I uh appreciate your post there I think youre simplifying things down too much…youre making it sound like your friend got in with this one ec just because he had passion when doing it. I’m sure a lot of ppl out there have equally if not more passion for their ec’s, but still fail to get in top ivies. Youre friend must have done something worthy to level out that low 2100…I don’t think admission officers can see the “passion in life” students have for a ec if they can’t see anything on paper(no awards related to the ec, no leadership, no supporting recs, etc.)</p>

<p>admissiongeek, yup. And to second point, yup again…I go to a hyper competitive public school, and a lot of my peers ( i would prob say 50 percent) had some bs or exaggeration they put in their app. One of my “friends” feigned his socioeconomic situation (one of his parents get paid overseas and makes tons, but of course he didn’t include)…he even became a questbridge finalist (yeah, it was a disgrace. I lost respect for him after that…one less spot for truly deserving underprivileged student)…but he ended up not getting in any of his match schools. </p>

<p>I wonder if colleges can detect bs most of the time</p>

55

<p>from knowledge of columbia, they screen for bs, certainly, but unless they can prove it, the adcoms say they can’t hold it against the student. the official line is they are against people cheating the system not merely because it is unethical to wrongly, but also because students think changing one aspect improves their chances. in fact it may indeed create inconsistencies in your application that make your application weaker.</p>

56

<p>admissionsgeek are you talking to me?</p>

<p>i assume youre not haha…
can somebody respond before my post gets so high up nobodyll look at it?</p>

57

<p>gshak - </p>

<p>the columbia adcom will be naturally cynical, they want to know why you do things, and will seek purpose in other parts of the application, the short essay, the activity essay, your long essay, your teacher recs and counselor rec. </p>

<p>the purpose of the application is to select students who are different, but in their own uniqueness it works, that is to say it appears as a complete and interesting package. without knowing your package, i can’t tell you if your application appears cohesive yet. but to answer your question, could they see the passion, of course. now it is whether or not your application shows that passion.</p>

58

<p>Those of you who disapprove of AA, how do you feel about the athletes who are accepted with way lower stats. Or the legacy kids? Or you guys who are applying to liberal arts schools where the girls are at a real disadvantage?</p>

<p>In all those cases, the school decides it has something to gain by admitting less qualified students in those categories. Same for the URM category.</p>

59

<p>I have genuinely had a change of heart in reading this post.
I used to be against AA, thinking that if we just removed race and gender entirely from consideration, then it would be fair in that people would be judged based entirely on their academic quality. As a very open-minded, liberal guy, I have since realized that I was completely and utterly wrong. That in fact, there are people that are severely disadvantaged compared to what my given means have been over the past seventeen years. I can definitely understand the use of AA for underprivileged socio-economic families. However, where I am pressed to agree is with is the affluent minorities. Perhaps it is just because I live in a very liberal and egalitarian area that it appears to me that regardless of race or gender, we are offered the same opportunities. Now I could be wrong, as I was with my last opinion, and I am very open to social commentary. I thrive off of reflecting my opinions on those of others.</p>

60

<p>

Ah, but that’s not how college admissions AA works. </p>

<p>Also, Scales1994, your posts are completely ridiculous.</p>