This very issue is going to be argued this week in the Supreme Court. This may or may not provide clarity.
@SAY The supreme court is unlikely to alter its decision on affirmative action. This whole case was started by two bitter, entitled, unqualified “white” women who believe that a URM took their place. The girl had a 1180 sat score(old scale) that is an average of 600 on reading and math? If she was so competitive then why didn’t she end up at another university of UT’s calibre? Instead fisher enrolled at Louisiana State University? I bet you that they are many URMs that outscore her on both the sat and in terms of gpa that applied to the university. Plus the fact that she was applying for a limited number of places(841) having failed to get in by the 10% plan and the fact that 168 black/latino students with scores equal or better than Abigail were also denied admission or the fact that some other dare I say “white” applicants with lower scores were admitted. The competition was fierce and even if she were a URM she would have still got a rejection letter.
The problem is states banning racial consideration. Most state universities have to find a way around this and try to achieve diversity using other methods. I bet you that there is still some affirmative action in these public universities and that they would still maintain their URM percentage, although whites and Asians would be admitted at higher rates than URMs. URMs could easily make up 25%-30% of applicants to a public university and end up getting fairly represented regardless but it’s just unfair for most of them that face financial hardships and socioeconomic disadvantages at the highest rates. For instance most African Americans admitted at UC universities are athletes and have lower graduation rates than other students. In comparison at schools with diversity considered the graduation rates are higher and the career prospects just as good.
@Ali1302 In terms of racial discrimination (in an unfair way), it’s the act of treating individuals differently because of their race or color. Please don’t get caught up on the broad definition (the SAT is NOT racial discrimination lolol what are you talking about).
And why must diversity be achieved? They should admit the best students based on the standard merit of college apps (scores, GPA, ECs). Divserity is not going to improve America’s economy. Diversity won’t cure cancer. Diversity won’t put a man on mars. But admitting the best students into the best colleges will.
@deeznuts your argument is ridiculous individuals aren’t treated differently under affirmative action, it simply serves those who are underrepresented and socioeconomically disadvantaged. Hell, if Asians were underrepresented or whites were underrepresented they would benefit from affirmative action too.
The best student isn’t determined by you but by an admissions officer how the hell do you know whether URMs at top schools aren’t great students? Ignorance pure and simple. Most URMs are socioeconomically disadvantaged in comparison to Asian or white applicants, they also have a much lower application rate and in general a lower IQ(a factor that highly correlates with wealth). A boost in admission helps close socioeconomic gaps and encourages a larger percentage of African Americans to graduate from high school and apply to these top universities.
Also if race and gender were not considered in an admission process than how would you order applicants? Would you order them based on test scores and gpa alone? Would we simply have a random admission process were any student with a U.W gpa below a 3.8 and a score below a 2150 is rejected at most top schools? Would we have a system were one year the entering class demographic could shoot up to 70% white then another year the percentage is as low as 30% white due to the random nature of this new admission process?
Even universities like UCLA that state they have no affirmative action do still use race and gender at least to order applicants into groups so as to compare them and have applications reviewed fairly. There is no such thing as a race blind university in the real world. There’s also no such thing as a race blind human being either. Those that state they are race blind are delusional and in denial.
On your questions on diversity. Diversity remains part of what the real world is. People of different interests, cultures, genders, race etc… living on the same planet, if the world wasn’t diverse then humans would probably never exist since diversity is a huge contributing factor to a species survival on this planet. People don’t simply go to university to cure cancer or work at NASA simply viewing these individuals as servants for mankind is selfish. University is about opportunities and mainly giving a person an education that shouldn’t be a luxury available to a certain group in society but a right for everyone. Diversity does a lot to benefit everyone and does a lot to benefit society in general by having diverse institutions/work places you integrate rather than segregate. It’s about utilitarianism thinking of everyone rather than one specific group or individual.
Do you think the Asians taking advantage of the elite college fly-in programs I posted above would agree with you?
This is an opinion and as we all seem to agree, that’s fine that it’s yours.
However I do not share it as the parent of a college student. I am thrilled that my kid has friends of many races, economic levels, parts of the country and world to be with and learn from and share her educational life with. It’s a critical and very enjoyable and enriching part of her education, inside and outside the classroom. Especially because there wasn’t much diversity in her high school and town. Gaining access to these perspectives and sharing her own are part of a US liberal arts education, for white girls from the midwest like her as well as for the kids coming from different backgrounds.
And obviously, that opinion is not shared by the vast majority of elite colleges in the US (who vigorously defend AA and its part in achieving diversity on their campuses). There are a few colleges that think diversity doesn’t matter, I suppose - why choose to go to or change one that finds it integral to their mission?
Well, do you believe Obama could have ever become who is he is today had it not been for affirmative action, from his days in private school in HI to his ivy league transfer from Occidental… Of course who knows what the impact has been of affirmative action taking up slots from upper middle class white kids, maybe we’d have gotten a few more Donald Trumps instead… hehe In all seriousness, diversity is an important societal goal. Without some form of affirmative action the demographic makeup of most of the top schools in the country would swing wildly to Asian students, just look at UC Berkeley since its toning down of affirmative action, or better yet look at the demographic composition of Stuyvesant or Bronx Science…
Two assumptions:
- Students of certain race are not doing well as their peers
- They grow up in a family with low income (difficult circumstance)
Neither are not valid any more.
Family income may be a better criteria than race.
NO !!!
- I don't believe that many minority students really benefit from holistic affirmative action. UT was never able to provide any numbers. An estimate says that, approximately, 14 Blacks and 40 Hispanic students out of 6,000 really benefited. Not that much. Especially, since many "minority" were, in fact, children of the well connected politicians.
- Holistic "affirmative action" is used as a veil by colleges to kill transparency and admit "who-ever-they-want" regardless of merit.
- I don't want to speak for other races, by Hispanics have enough intellect, class, and merit to achieve success on their own.
- Affirmative action is a sad reminder to our kids that they are judged based on the color of their skin, that merit alone would never ever play a role. Kids, at the most tender age, learn that merit is secondary. It robs them from the feeling of "achievement".
- "There are too many smart students". - how often have I heard this tune! Kids learn that being smart and working hard is boring. I've heard a talk among teenagers that getting pregnant or doing time in jail is a cool topic for the college admission essay. Poor kids, how confused are they!
<well, do="" you="" believe="" obama="" could="" have="" ever="" become="" who="" is="" he="" today="" had="" it="" not="" been="" for="" affirmative="" action,="" from="" his="" days="" in="" private="" school="" hi="" to="" ivy="" league="" transfer="" occidental…=""></well,>
Actually, yes, I do believe that Obama could have achieved it on his own. He is, actually, a very smart person. The problem is that Obama, himself, doesn’t believe that he would have been accepted to Ivy without AA. Thank is the real problem.
U.S. Supreme Court closely split on use of affirmative action at universities
The future of affirmative action at public universities appeared in limbo Wednesday as the Supreme Court justices debated for a second time whether to strike down a race-based admissions policy at the University of Texas.
It was clear that the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., believe that using affirmative action in admission decisions is unneeded and unconstitutional.
When a university lawyer spoke of the importance of classroom diversity, Roberts asked, “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?”
Is it fair to lower the bar for certain race?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-affirmative-action-20151209-story.html
@Ali1302 I already touched on several of your points, so I’m not going to repeat myself. But you’re saying a middle class black student gets the AA boost over a Asian student in poverty? Just because blacks have historically “lower IQ”?
“There is no such thing as a race blind university in the real world.” No, but take the UT system for example. The top 10% of each high school class gets in! This is race blind admission, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.
@OHMomof2 Yes, I guess this is where our ideologies differ. My high school is the complete opposite of your daughter’s. I go to a school where whites are a minority compared to blacks (and you can count the number of Asians on one hand). Most of my friends are black/Hispanic in fact. But I don’t believe this diversity has enhanced my education or high school experience in any way.
And as for the “elite colleges in the US (who vigorously defend AA and its part in achieving diversity on their campuses)”, I am confident that they practice AA for financial reasons, to boost their reputation. If the Ivies were 95% Asian & White, the media would absolutely destroy them. But the Ivies don’t want to be labeled as the rich white kid school, that would hurt their business! I’m sure the president of Harvard could not care less about diversity in any ethical or intrinsic sense.
I understand that colleges do it for diversity, and while I don’t agree with that, that’s where our opinions can differ. However, I don’t understand the argument that all URMs are disadvantaged, poor, live in the ghetto, etc. I think any student, regardless or race should get a slight boost if they are born in such conditions. I don’t understand why all African Americans and Hispanics are thought of to be disadvantaged. I’m sure most of the ones getting into ivy league schools and similar were upper class.
My own schools were like yours, through junior high. I was actually the only white kid in my grade for several years. I do think those experiences, good and bad, were very valuable, though perhaps parenthetical to the situation we are discussing, which is a residential college community of students living and learning and socializing together.
They do.
The concept of affirmative action had a much nobler result 20-30 years ago… Today a larger proportion of affirmative action benefiting URMs are actually upper middle class or rich kids who get a preferential nod to acceptance at the top schools. Of course there are still many poor and first generation URMs, but the proportions are totally flipped from just a few decades ago. In this regard, it seems affirmative action has been a major success – just consider President Obama, who would most likely never have gotten to where he is today had it not been for affirmative action policies… But in today’s setting, perhaps its more effective to consider applicant zip code and status as first generation college student as more deserving of admission bump than merely ticking a URM box??
@Regulus Please show any evidence that affirmative action mainly benefits upper middle class/upper class URMs? If you have no evidence then I’d advise you not to speculate on this issue. Most URMs are living in relatively low income/poverty and in general are less likely to attend college. Gaps still exist between whites/Asians and URMs in terms of socioeconomic factors. Affirmative action does its job of closing socioeconomic gaps, promoting diversity and providing opportunities for URMs that would otherwise not be available to them. When the URMs have similar highschool graduation rates, income, wealth and are less likely to be incarcerated then we can say there is no need for affirmative action. It may take a few decades to get there but it is definitely possible.
Telling URMs that they have to go to inferior schools is not solving the problem but making it worst. In fact URMs tend to have higher graduation rates at top universities and overall have better career prospects than in inferior colleges or historically black segregated schools.
If you simply adopt a socioeconomic factor policy it would mostly benefit whites and Asians that make up the majority of applicants to top schools. This would be bad because whites and Asians are less likely to be low income or live in poverty in comparison to URMs. This means this policy would not be evenly distributed demographically speaking in terms of poverty/low income rates by ethnicity.
The only policy that is effective right now at achieving socioeconomic equality and diversity is affirmative action that is why it’s important to maintain such policies. Anything other than this would cause a dramatic decrease in URM % and possibly racial segregation as African Americans would end up at the inferior, least selective schools while Asians and whites end up at the most selective superior schools. Lets not o back to the 1800s and 1900s!
@Ali1302 You just said most URMs live in poverty, then said adopting a socioeconomic factor policy would only benefit whites and Asians. Why is there a problem with some affirmative action to low income whites/Asians who have lived in bad areas, went to inner city schools, etc. The problem I have with your reasoning is that you say MOST URMs are living in low income/less likely to go to college. What about the ones who are high income and have college educated parents? Why do they deserve an advantage? Under a socioeconomic policy, instead of labeling whole groups of races as impoverished and disadvantaged, you would give the advantage to those who actually are underprivileged.
What about poor Asians and Whites? Should they just go to inferior colleges because colleges have “enough of them?” Don’t they deserve the same advantage to get ahead in life as a poor Hispanic student?
@class0f2017 I’m not saying don’t have a socioeconomic policy in fact I support that. However, in terms of income there are far more middle class and upper class asians and white applicants than URMs. The key word here is RATE, URMs have a higher low income/poverty rate in comparison to Asians and whites . If there was a socioeconomic policy it should mainly benefit URMs in order to be fair demographically speaking. Therefore I support a socioeconomic policy with demographics taken into account and having this fairly distributed among people of different ethnic backgrounds. Do you understand me now?
For instance lets say 40% of URM applicants were low income and around 10% of Asians/White applicants had low incomes too. It would make sense that URMs get 80% of the socioeconomic boost while Asians and whites only get 20% of the boost since they are less likely to be poor. This would evenly distribute the benefit and make admissions fair. Since the low income rate for URMs is higher than that of Asians and whites and the ratio is 4:1 in this regard.
A HS student with a complex plan to precisely divvy up a scare resource based on “fairness”. What could go wrong?
@Ali1301 Why generalize the entire race though? I don’t care that a White/Asian kid in general would be less likely to be poor. I care about that one white kid whose high school dropout parents make less than $20k a year. Is he more likely to get out of poverty than a URM?
Let’s say there are two kids. One White kid and one African American, both with high school educated parents living in poverty. The African American gets the boost because Whites in general are wealthier?
The problem I have with your example of 80% to URMs and 20% boost is that you set a specific amount of affirmative action to each race. Why not just give any poor kid the same amount of an advantage.