<p>Like someone else said, I’m a supporter of affirmative action, though it very well may hurt me because I’m Asian. But if I were admitted, I’d be hellaz excited to meet these kids because they do, indeed, seem crazy interesting. With that said, though, it’d be hugely ignorant to say that affirmative action didn’t play a role. </p>
<p>@southeasttitan: Sure, we don’t have their essays, SAT scores, or recommendations, but honestly, their empirical statistics are so much lower than some of the deferees here. I think hostility arises here when certain people misconstrue affirmative action and fail to realize the subtleties. You mentioned “the insinuation that they got in purely because of their race”–which I don’t believe that we’re saying.</p>
<p>Was affirmative action why they got in? No. They’re obviously qualified to be there; maybe they’re not as statistically up as the Asian deferees/rejectees, but definitely smart enough to thrive at Yale.</p>
<p>Did affirmative action get them in? Probably. It was probably the tipping factor.</p>
<p>We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. We can disagree about whether affirmative action is justified, but we need to face the fact that it occurs at highly selective academic institutions including Yale, and African-American accepted applicants as a group, on average, have considerably worse academic qualifications than other accepted applicants.</p>
<p>This is well documented in many places. One scholarly source is The Shape of the River, by William Bowen (former president of Princeton), Derek Bok (former president of Harvard) et al. The book leaves no doubt that African-American students at very selective institutions including Yale have different, lower admissions standards. That may be good, it may be bad, but it’s undisputably true.</p>
<p>i don’t even think affirmative action is the main problem here though–what made me sad was yale using affirmative action as a cover to add to its publicity so it could increase its funds and recieve more donations. i feel like yale is using these kids, and i’m sure they are very qualified and will probably get into other great schools, for its own purposes. That is what really upset me.</p>
<p>@ cardinal fang: no, many other urms were deferred and i do not think that the quads got in simply because of their race. and i also don’t think they would have gotten in as singletons at yale. entering a single urm doesn’t raise yale’s publicity but entering quads does.</p>
<p>Yeah people keep perpetuating this notion, but amongst the African Americans that I know here I was the least statistically qualified. So I think you would be hard pressed to find many URMs at Yale who were unqualified. Aside from me the lowest class rank that I know of from other minorities was number 5 and the lowest scores were a 32 on the ACT.</p>
<p>Not even. I was more qualified than most of them and got straight up rejected from Princeton and Harvard. And that was after I got a personal home call from from the regional head of Harvard interviewing telling em that Harvard was really interested.</p>
<p>What you and several others, however, fail to realize is that southeastitan’s acceptance is verifiable proof that stats are not everything. Obviously she was extremely qualified to get into Yale and didn’t have a 2400 and wasn’t val. If anything it proves that Yale’s holistic process is not simply a cover for affirmative action as so many would like to assume. </p>
<p>Yale has stated continually that there is not a standard for admission to Yale. The only standard they probably have is if they want to admit you, and that is something that is completely out of all applicant’s control.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yale takes a lot of siblings. If you are a Yalie or know a lot of Yalies, you know this to be true. I know more than a few pairs of twins at Yale. That’s because Yale either takes all of the kids that apply or doesn’t take any of them at all. It’s not always the case, but its basically the rule. </p></li>
<li><p>Yale really wants students from the New Haven area. That means that if you’re from Branford or Danbury or Hartford you get a boost regardless of race.</p></li>
<li><p>Yale wants diversity. You can argue on the virtues of diversity if you’d like. I think it’s awesome.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Those three factors helped the Crouch kids as a whole get into Yale, particularly the first one. That being said, they’re all qualified for Yale. Being qualified for Yale isn’t a particularly high standard at all. In fact, it doesn’t exist. An admitee doesn’t even need a high school diploma. There should be no arguments whether or not they were qualified. Most everyone rejected is qualified and everyone accepted is qualified. Admittance has nothing to do with being qualified. </p>
<p>And no, admitted students aren’t more qualified than rejected students based on any tangible factor. Admissions doesn’t work that way - not even for Asian students.</p>
<p>What you guys are arguing is whether they were likely to get into Yale if they were another race. Probably not. But you know what? No student would be as likely to get into Yale if you changed their student profile even a little.That’s the point. It’s the student as a whole. If you change a part of the student, you change the student as a whole. Sure,plus a few SAT points is always better, but other than that little differences change everything. </p>
<p>You change a white student’s race to Asian or an Asian student’s race to white, you’ll get the same thing. In some instances, if you changed a white student’s race to black it would hurt them. </p>
<p>Yes, there are some circumstances like that. </p>
<p>Cool argument, bro. Does it then follow that legacy admissions implies superiority or inferiority among the children of alumni and non-alumni? I mean, Yale is giving preference to legacy students. That should imply that legacy kids are generally superior to non-legacies even though they may be admitted with similar or lower stats, right?</p>
<p>Affirmative action doesn’t perpetuate “the degree of inequality of among the races”. Affirmative Action works to boost minority representation in fields that have been traditionally closed to non-whites and women. It has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. It has everything to do with the fact that, if I said, hey, no guys named Joe can go to Yale until 1992, there’d be a small amount of Yalies named Joe in 2002 even if Joes had equal stats to everyone else; and if I wanted to even that out some, I’d have to work toward getting more guys named Joe.</p>
<p>Yes. Legacy admits receive preferential treatment in the same way that racial minorities receive advantages. In fact, many colleges/universities explicitly admit to this benefit of legacy applicants on their websites. For instance, Harvard’s website states that, “The daughters and sons of College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.” However, how would the general population react to the obvious statement that minorities will receive a boost in admissions? Private universities are most at fault since they have no regulation governing their admission practices which invariably leads to unjust, dogmatic practices. </p>
<p>That is, their admission practices are uninhibited by any legal statutes unlike those of public universities. Governments have no opportunity to act on lurking suspicions of discrimination and promulgate oversight mechanisms simply because a private university can keep their applicants information sworn to secrecy; thus, the problem persists. Colleges/universities can admit to the privileges conferred to legacy applicants simply because there is not the same degree of ethical vulgarity present and it does not reconstruct the evocative memories of the past like those regarding racial matters.</p>
<p>Given the history of our nation, any admittance to the preferential treatment among the races will lead to vast outcry. Instead, admissions at private universities are a highly confidential procedure that use affirmative action without any form of declaration. That is, there are no overt statements regarding its existence and schools refuse to publish statistics regarding admission practices by ethnicity simply because they are aware of the inherent bigotry present but unwilling to admit to social impropriety. Hence, it is a sinister, undignified element that remains present simply because there is no mention of its actual existence although it is unquestionably exhibited. </p>
<p>Without question it does “perpetuate the degree of inequality of among the races” simply by acknowledging that there are differences to begin with. This is a very dangerous precedent to set for any society. If we do not continually provide individuals with positions and opportunities that they deserve based on previous demonstration of ability, what will happen to the level of talent in our society at the positions that need it most? Do individuals deserve to continually be punished because of the color of their skin or some factor by virtue of birth (ethnicity, wealth, preexisting family connections)?</p>
<p>Moreover, what is the purpose of placing minorities into fields where they have been historically underrepresented? Just for the sake of it? Or is it so they can serve as the voice of their own people’s best interests (in other words, preferentially treat those of their own race) once they are in a position of some degree of power? </p>
<p>Yes, minorities were at one point in our nation’s history socially, politically, and economically oppressed and wrongfully burdened into inferior positions of servitude. Why must we recompense for previous social transgressions by punishing those who are the most qualified? Why must we once again visit such a discomforting point in our history?</p>
<p>The argument under consideration is not whether these four were qualified. Ninety percent or more applicants who apply to Yale have some degree of competitiveness working to their benefit. It is precisely the idea that they were not ** as ** qualified as those who were rejected of deferred that is troubling. No they were not admitted exclusively on the basis that they were Nigerian but it was undeniably the factor that led to their acceptance, considering that none were completely outstanding in any of their ambitions. They were simply good students who did well in what they pursued. Even more alarming, as others have correctly placed into perspective, is that Yale is simply using these students to gather publicity. But going beyond the typical human sentimental response to this “dream-come-true” story, one can see Yale’s misconduct by supporting an intrinsically bigoted practice.</p>
<p>The first was in refutation of the concept that all minorities students were recipients of an affirmative action boost. I mean URMs with 2200+ and 34+ don’t really need affirmative action to get in, so that is a clear standard by which one can delienate between qualified minorities and unqualified minorities statistically. This one was in regard to specific students.</p>
<p>The second part referred to the general perception that numbers are the only thing that Yale cares about. Obviously numbers can be a metric to show qualifications but the entirety of the admission process does not revolve around number as many on here know.</p>
<p>I don’t think they are contradiction because minority students who score well obviously didn’t get in because of affirmative action. But those minorities with lesser stats may or it could be do to the nuances involved in the admissions process. So essentially all I did was establish a standard by which one can evaluate if candidates needed a boost, and if that standard is not met one could easily look to the caveat where scores are not the most important factor.</p>
<p>I did not fail to realize anything when I responded to her post. That is exactly what my argument established by discussing what she had accomplished. Southeasttitan had an unmistakable talent for literature through a 1560 combined W and CR scores and a Davidson Fellowship for Literature although she stated that she was ranked 20th in her class and had an SAT Math score that was below the marks she achieved on the other sections of the test. Admission officers will go beyond basic statistics and the quantification of an applicant if an unmistakable talent in one area. However, one must not misconstrue the difference between what constitutes talent and what does not. The color of your skin is not a measure of one’s aptitude. Contrarily, displaying distinct abilities in academics, standardized testing, the fine arts, or athletics among others fully qualifies. </p>
<p>College admissions have predominantly been a process based on one’s individual merit and what one’s individual capacities can provide for the school. Basing a decision on race is indubitably not an intrinsic quality that provides benefits for the school. The color of one’s skin does not define his or her viewpoints, intellectual insights, or promote any substantial degree of ethnic interaction among students. In fact, college campuses remain as segregated as most other segments of society. </p>
<p>Of any form of affirmative action, one that bases on extending its benefits to those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged rather to those of specific ethnicities may be warranted in certain instances since accomplishments and successes must be viewed in the context in which they were achieved. </p>
<p>As for myself, I hold strong opinions on this subject because it is an issue that affects me and will continue to wrongly affect me for the remainder of my life unless a collective movement is instigated to overturn such discriminatory policies since I happen to be a Caucasian, 17-year-old male just beginning to experience the world of competition through the college admission process. However, I have not mentioned my race on my applications since I would much rather prefer to identify myself within the greater scope of humanity.</p>
<p>It’s only troubling because they’re black. It’s pretty easy to make the argument that for every student accepted, an equally or better qualified student has been rejected. Remember that places like Harvard and Yale rejected half of the perfect scorers that apply. The vast majority of Yalies are not perfect scorers. Are you troubled by the 90% of Yalies that are not as qualified as that half of perfect scorers that are deferred or rejected?</p>
<p>Are you troubled? I really want an answer to this question. Because otherwise, you aren’t troubled that they weren’t ‘as qualified’. You are troubled because you believe that there is some equally or better qualified non-minority applicant. But this is true of almost all Yalies. Hence the argument that admittance has nothing to do with being qualified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure you know them well enough to make that judgement. For every Yalie or Crimson that is ranked at the top of their ‘ambition’ there are a dozen that are mostly just very talented or passionate about what they do. </p>
<p>I’m beginning to believe that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Did you attend HYPS?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what the majority of Yale and Harvard students are. There aren’t enough Intel-Whatevers to fill a class at Yale or Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I highly doubt it. Yale was either going to take them all or reject them all. The university obviously wanted at least one of them, so they took them all. And even if they did just do it for publicity. So? That’s Yale’s perogative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can only guess Yale’s motivations for admitting these four, objectively amazing students. Based on your guess, I’m going to guess that your problem with their admittance is intrinsically bigoted. You can’t deal with the fact that they’re objectively outstanding students. Instead, you cling to this idea that all non-minority students are just AMAZING and that these students are somehow lesser. </p>
<p>You can’t get it out of your head that there are white students that are more deserving.</p>
<p>You might be right. But as I said before that’s true of white students, too.</p>
<p>You also don’t mention your race because it’s probably not salient to you every day of your life. It has little affect on you and when it does it’s usually neutral (good) or good. But you don’t know that. Being unaware of white privilege is a part of white privilege.</p>
<p>Stop making trying to take the moral high ground. Should kids from Kansas not mention it on their applications because they’ll get regional diversity brownie points? Should legacies not mention that their parent attended the university? Should kids from feeder schools somehow figure a way to NOT mention they went to said school? Should girls applying to MIT not identify their gender? </p>
<p>One of the main reasons AA still exists is because African American, Latino, Native American, and other kids are STILL at disadvantage. They experience racism on a sometimes-daily basis. Their families were affected by slavery and racist government policies. White people oppose AA because they like to think that race doesn’t matter anymore, and that the only reason colleges practice it is to make themselves look “diverse.” They do it because they recognize that many of the URM students have experienced great descrimination and disadvantages because of their race.</p>
<p>Another reason? Who do you think is more likely to go to a disadvantaged neighborhood and start a business or a charity there? A rich white kid who grew up in an isolated suburb or a minority kid who grew up in that neighborhood itself? Clearly, the latter.</p>
<p>@mifune- you are extremely well spoken, and if your posts don’t convince people (or at least make people consider) of the harmfulness of AA, then i don’t know what will. this in particular is superb:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and note- I’d rather agree with people’s quotes than put in my own two cents, because well, they say it better and I tend to get hostile in these types of arguments :D</p>
<p>No, but why does one’s attendance at HYPS need to serve as a prerequisite for seeing the blatant prejudice inherent in affirmative action?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Since when have I mentioned that the SAT is the only portion of a college application?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am troubled by affirmative action because it uses race as an admission factor. By your last statement, if admittance has nothing to do with qualifications, then please enlighten me on what college admissions is based on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read the first paragraph of my post at 6:48 PM.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you are starting to base your arguments on personal attacks which is a very pitiable way of arguing. I am not suggesting that they are not good students; I am objecting to the use of race as an admission factor which, as I have continually expounded, is unquestionably a discriminatory practice. As I have stated previously, it further institutionalizes racism by originally declaring that differences between the races exist. I support the admittance of those who are qualified, not those who have a particular skin color.</p>
<p>Do you honestly believe that one should receive benefits because of the color of their skin? One who supports that is an unconcealed racist, not one who recognizes bias within the policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What privilege does Cacausian ethnicity confer to today’s applicants at selective private universities?</p>