<p>The argument about affirmative action is that colleges want to build freshman classes that mirror society. I think people know why AA is fair, and also why it is unfair. It is fair if the URM has severe disadvantages and overcomes them. In that case, the URM deserves a chance more than an affluent applicant who had all of the advantages. It is unfair since the best people should get the rewards no matter what.</p>
<p>The problem I have is that the AA system will favor an affluent URM with all the advantages over a poor white kid with alcoholic parents. It should be based on socioeconomic factors rather than skin color. However, that doesn't work politically.</p>
<p>I really hope this doesn't turn into another AA thread. I feel guilty for contributing.</p>
<p>Its somewhat flawed but then again everything in this world is, cuz nothings perfect. The problem is that in western culture, admissions places a huge emphasis on the personal circumstances/subjective parts of the application such as EC's, essays, etc which are hard to quantify, whereas in Asia and other parts of the world, its more stats driven which is easily quantifiable and easy to distinguish between applicants. Thus it is b/c of this holistic process U.S. schools use to eval apps that things such as AA based on race, which some view as very flawed, are used to create diversity/level the playing field for disadvantaged students, generally speaking, but this is not always the case</p>
<p>I really dont think that the affluent blacks are being helped as much as you think. An obvious reason is that there are not that many. I went to the Duke minority weekend, and Stanford and Yale's admit weekends and I can tell you that most of the blacks and hispanics there did not live the affluent lifestyle. I talked to alot of them and they mentioned how financial aid came through for them and how they never expected to afford college. I saw very few rich, prep school blacks, though there were some.</p>
<p>Yes - yes - yes! Of course there are some sincere and hardworking people in admissions, but how can anyone even entertain the idea that the process is perfect?! But I guess you have to play the game as it exists, flawed or not. Class of 2006: let the games begin!</p>
<p>it is flawed for various reasons already mentioned (legacy, donor, athlete, affirmative action, etc etc), but it is also flawed because of the different values placed upon it. </p>
<p>colleges in china, india, and the UK would think US college admissions is flawed because they're not necessarily accepting the best students with the highest scores and best academic performance, but rather taking into consideration subjective measures such as leadership, EC's, service, the aforementioned flaws, etc. on the other hand, US colleges would think that the other college admissions processes are flawed because they emphasize too much on test scores and aren't able to see an applicant as a whole person and a leader of the future. </p>
<p>thus, college admissions will always be flawed because of the values a society places upon it.</p>
<p>AA needs to be revised. It should not be on the base of race, but on condition. Admission should take into consideration annual income, neighborhood, etc. I know of at least one URM who is a very good student, and although probably not Harvard material on his own, is almost a shoo-in due to his race.</p>
<p>People are looking at the korean system and drawing incorrect conclusions. The only problem with the Korean system is the paucity of university slots and the competiton that engenders. </p>
<p>Look at the best highschool in this country: Thomas Jefferson High. They select the kids mainly by their performance on a specific examination. Are the students there not phenomenal? The average SAT score there is an astronomical 1480. If that school is producing such success with that model, why not extend it to college admissions? It's laughable that a bunch of intangible factors will make you a better student and much moreso the thought that some far off admissions counselor ascertain those characteristics accurately.</p>
<p>Those in academia just don't like to be told what to do and prefer to craft their own social utopia fantasy. They want to manufacture their own "social justice." Teachers unions just have too much power.
Got a little OT there.</p>
<p>"Its somewhat flawed but then again everything in this world is, cuz nothings perfect."</p>
<p>God, I hate it when people say stuff like that. That's not a justification for anything. It's like if someone asks you why you accidentally killed someone and you say "I'm only human." It's a non reason, non excuse and you only except yourself or the given party from culpability. The implication of that statement, that I think: Yes, because the world is unfair, therefore they should not try to alleviate that and can do whatever the hell they want. Because life is unfair, nothing else has to be remotely fair, because, well, life's not fair, so why should they try and make this situation be fair? Therefore, all attempts to make the world fair are futile right? Then we should just have a lottery for admissions.</p>