Rather than “different,” it’s less hierarchical (stats based, alone,) than everyone assumes. A range of stats can be acceptable for any category of applicant. It’s not just top down.
When anyone says the process “favors” URMs it often implies they really couldn’t have gotten in without being selected for diversity purposes alone. There are many factors that apply, that can swing a kid in. But the kids are qualified.
Ask that question to some high achieving Asian girls who got denied from top schools and medical schools because of their ORM status? They’ll be better able to talk about these believes.
@doschicos I agree with that but you know, race is a more visible factor than first generation or poverty.
I think we already discussed the female aspect. At one time, it benefitted females but there is no longer such an advantage. Females apply in greater numbers currently than males.
Many people get how it works and know URMs are more than qualified. As far as the jerks that don’t see that, I don’t worry about them.
“Why does affirmative action not stigmatize the many qualified women/girls who are admitted? Why only URM? Why do we believe that affirmative action policies are only for URM and not for women as well?”
Nobody on this thread said that only URM are stigmatized. Many have said that athletes, legacy admissions and students from underrepresented states also benefit from their hook and are therefore stigmatized. Not sure what the point is you are trying to make about women/girls? At many schools there are more qualified female applicants than qualified males and therefore no admission advantage being a woman.
@queenmother Please name some top colleges or programs where being an Asian female is an advantage. I’m not being sarcastic, I really want to find out.
And it is not about whether students who have benefited from “hooks” are qualified. They should be but given the huge number of applicants who are equally or more qualified on the “non-hook”
aspects, the hooks help some of those who would have a harder time getting in if they didn’t have the hooks. This is all that is.
See, I worry about this attitide that it’s all about the hook. Or that a distant observer knows who’s equally or more qualified. Or that something is wrong because, without the hook, they would have “a harder time getting in.” Do you know that?
What are we arguing here really? No one is talking about any individual applicant or individual case. It is an institution policy to give preferential treatment to applicants with defined characteristics as a whiole. Are you trying to deny there’s such a thing as preferable treatment in admission?
@panpacific I didn’t say I thought American students were better. I was pointing out that some Americans (esp but not solely white ones) want to insist on a numerical meritocracy when the topic is affirmative action. But if that same numerical meritocracy were applied to American students versus their counterparts in say India, many American students would lose. And in such a competition all the sudden Americans don’t want a numerical meritocracy. In other words, numerical meritocracy good when it helps you, bad when it doesn’t. For many reasons, I prefer preferential admissions that consider the whole person and that person’s experience. In America’s melting pot I think that works best and I know for sure that the best test taker and the best grade holder is not guaranteed to be the better student or ultimate contributor.I have tutored people with high grades who don’t have a single original thought and people with Cs who are brilliant.
And while we are on affirmative action, ask any competitive college admissions office and they will tell you that there is plenty of it going on for men these days, in an effort to keep the 50/50 quota. The truth is that men are URG, an underrepresented gender in the college pool these days.Don’t see any complaints about that.
@SugarlessCandy i never said an Asian female was an advantage. They are considered OVER represented. Notice the emphasis on over. Schools are trying to build a diverse community of students. Part of building that community entails trying to find the right mix of students to be a part of that community. If they think you are OVER represented on their campus then they will not admit as many of you. If they think you are under represented on their campus they will try to find more of you. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. Stop thinking admission is based solely on test scores and grades. It’s not. If that was the case, there would be no need for interviews and essays, They are looking for so much more. As soon as people get that in their heads, people will stop thinking someone took their spot.
@doschicos, females are still underrepresented in some fields especially stem fields like engineering and computer science. They still benefit from affirmative action.
Isn’t it inarguable that 100’s of qualified applicants are declined by the top schools? The kids that get in all have something the schools are looking for to build what they want in a class. It may be race, geography, athletic prowess, artistic prowess, musical talent, geographic location, or a special interest or quality, or a combination of the above, or any number of other qualities, but these schools certainly don’t have to lower their basic academic standards to build that class. The implicit suggestion in some of these posts that they do is ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous as the overt claims that these schools are blind to these special qualities. The kids that are accepted get in for a number of reasons, some we know and some we don’t. Just as the ones who aren’t accepted don’t get in for a number of reasons which rarely involve lack of academic ability.
What would these schools look like if it was a pure meritocracy? What do you define as merit? Academic achievement without regard for any other quality? If a school only accepted the brightest applicants, however you define that, would it still be a desirable school to attend? Not for me or my child.
The schools you are applying to are desirable to you because of what they are, not because of what you wish or think they should be.
“females are still underrepresented in some fields especially stem fields like engineering and computer science. They still benefit from affirmative action.”
As will males in some fields that are traditionally female, and in general compared to females these days. Not sure why you feel females are advantaged more than males, @queenmother. Absent a few majors, it is easier for guys these days.
Bottom line, schools are looking to bring diversity. If your not an athlete, you’re not competing against athletes. If you’re not a legacy, you’re not competing against legacies. Same for URMs, etc. Those spots just aren’t open to you.
Agreed it’s easier for guys these days especially in fields like nursing.
Affirmative action no longer helps females in general as the scales have tilted and there are more of them at nearly every college or university. Plus they are more successful than males. I think a female looking for a STEM field like engineering or CS will get a bit of a bump as will the male nurse.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Closing thread. The discussion has moved too far away from the original poster’s post and has moved into the not-allowed-on-this-subforum topic of Affirmative Action. The AA conversation can continue [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1843141-race-in-college-applications-faq-discussion-12.html#latest%5Dhere.%5B/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1843141-race-in-college-applications-faq-discussion-12.html#latest]here.[/url]