<p>Gone are the days that I dream of attending prestigious universities. I no longer buy into the whole prestige of universities thing anymore. I just think AA is unjust, even though it doesn’t stand in the way of my goals. Also, my college english teacher made me read Sotomayor’s My Beloved World , which describes her going so far as to sue a lawyer who asked her about AA. And that was supposed to make her seem righteous and inspirational, when really, she was just overly sensitive. The irony here is that my English teacher supports her 150% and made the theme of the class about “social justice”. Ha.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, I wrote an absolutely breathtaking personal statement that got me into my dream school and two other top tier UCs, FYI. i suppose I am angry at how unjust AA is, even though I don’t even want to go to prestigious/top schools anymore. Even more frustrating is that those of us who root for real justice and equal level playing field are called “racist”.</p>
<p>So because I can’t stand the book and how unjust AA is, (probably have to praise it against my will in an essay a week from now or I will fail the course), I blow off steam here and hope to find some people who actually understand the true meaning of justice, fairness, and equality.</p>
<p>AGirl, I wonder just what you really know about AA, other than what you think you see or what someone tells you. </p>
<p>Minorities admitted through affirmative action are less prepared and/or motivated. That’s a very indicting comment, one you can’t begin to prove. It does show you are willing to lump all minorities together and assume. That’s just what stereotyping is about. * They likely would not pass, much less thrive, in such environments. To retain these individuals, the universities must lower their standards, which would lower the prestige of the university, * You don’t know that, either.</p>
<p>You don’t know about the motivation of bright kids, their records- or even if your own accomplishments put you in some special category, when adcoms view thousands of qualified applications. But you are willing to state they are admitted just because and the U’s lower their standards, that these folks would likely not pass, much less thrive, etc.</p>
<p>When I say some applicants leave others in the dust, I mean they go above and beyond to challenge themselves, take on responsibilities and have some impact in their communities. They are focused, achieve- and do thrive at good colleges. Their perspective is larger than what some kids in their hs did or didn’t do. </p>
<p>They are not pulling fire alarms or threatening others. </p>
<p>*because of AA, people would think that she got in only because of AA. *</p>
<p>How sad some don’t question views like this. That they don’t look at the individual, just assume because he or she is a minority, they can’t be equal. Or that they can’t possibly work as hard as you did or pass the same hurdles or achieve. That they aren’t as “good” as you know you are. Yikes. You blame it all on AA. I can’t help but notice how individuals think and assume.</p>
What do you mean? All my threads ask for information about the job market, because I want to find a job after graduation. I don’t equate success with grades, EC, or money. That doesn’t mean I don’t want a job that would allow me to feed and clothe myself. Not a single one of my posts is about money or prestige; they are about job prospects. I don’t need a high paying job, but i do need a job.</p>
How is that sad? I meant as first assumptions, which the human mind automatically makes. Sure, in an ideal world, i wouldn’t make any such assumptions, but in the real world, most people and i get first impressions. </p>
<p>
At UCLA, most of the black kids are admitted through AA and athletic skills. This kid made a video on a famous youtube video that said only 35 percent of them graduate. Plus, why isn’t it safe to assume that those with lower high school stats are less likely to graduate? They were less motivated in high school and thus would be less academically prepared and/or motivated in college.</p>
<p>whoops sorry. typo. I meant “this made a famous youtube video that said ony 35 percent of them graduate”. This kid made the video to ask for more AA, but IMO that statistic works against AA</p>
<p>First impressions are not automatically worthy of being treated as truths or absolutes. Part of critical thinking is NOT settling for “first impressions,” but taking it further. Would you want us to stop at our first impressions of, say, you? Maybe assume something about you based on your heritage or physical attributes? </p>
<p>At UCLA, most of the black kids are admitted through AA and athletic skills. Affirmative action is barred. That’s one point of the protest. 74% graduate. I think you mixed up some numbers.</p>
<p>There are lots of factors that go into grad rates. Major, money, shifting interests, to name a few. You don’t know these kids’ hs stats, scores, that they were less motivated in hs. You are assuming, based on race/ethnicity. Can you see that?</p>
<p>Maybe you want to take a look for Black grad rates at some of the top schools you say are being dragged down. Harvard 96%, Stanford 90%, Pomona 87%, USC 75%. The report I saw was recent but the rates are a few years old- you can check for any more current breakdowns.</p>
<p>If they were so motivated and did so well in high school (SAT, grades) then they wouldn’t need AA. And that’s my point: even if they could have gotten in without AA, the fact that there is AA would make most employers and most people assume that they got in through AA. Reality is that most people make first impressions and they like to jump to conclusions. Eliminate AA and you would eliminate them too.</p>
<p>Honey, they don’t have AA at UCLA. They have a better than 35% grad rate, which I found and pointed out. And, you do not know how AA is implemented. You only know it exists.</p>
<p>Speak for yourself on the assuming they got in through AA. Say, “I assume they did.” Or, “I assume they had less impressive credentials.” Not try to hide your own assumptions with qualifying words like “most employers.” You don’t know this. It is just something else YOU assume. I sometimes note on CC that I tell my kids NOT to go with: “I think it, so it must be true.” Or its sister: “I read it somewhere, so it IS true.”</p>
<p>YOU said they lower standards, that this drags down a school, that they have less chance of thriving. That’s you. I pointed out some other, impressive grad rates, for schools that do accept AA. I see how it does work, how it is limited, how we apply our standards to each and every candidate, at the elite where I work. You don’t. Not even for UCLA.</p>
<p>Eliminate AA and you would eliminate them too. The UCs eliminated AA and YOU still make comments that they got in on some program. That’s not AA, that’s YOU.</p>
<p>Reality is that we live in a time where employers get thousands of applicants for each job position. Assumptions are used to filter applicants. They don’t have the time or patience to hear/read the autobiography of each applicant, so they filter and shred applications.</p>
<p>Like I’ve said, i’m not concerned with attending prestigious universities; I just don’t think AA is fair. And what you’ve said is mostly true, except for maybe the top tier Ivy Leagues, which are heavily recruited from. By the way, this is what i don’t understand: affirmative action was created to help minorities to get into these unis with intentions to help them climb up the economic ladder. With the exception of the top tier Ivy Leagues, getting into top schools for undergrad doesn’t help you get good jobs (major is way more important), so what is the point of AA? Perhaps it made sense in the 70s and 80s when a general college degree was worth something, and almost everyone with any degree could land cushy jobs.</p>
I normally don’t enter these types of back and forths, but generally Ivies at the undergrad level don’t help either. It Is the graduate level where name MAY have an impact in certain fields. I don’t think that anyone believes this, however. Looking at your arguments here I wonder if you believe it. If no one is getting ahead by going to these Universities, and any University will do, why all the screaming and gnashing of teeth by so many when it comes to this issue?
There are studies showing that a person with an African American “name” with the same qualifications of an applicant with a Caucasian “name” is far less likely to be called for a job interview, yet we’re all up in arms about some perceived advantage in admissions. A perceived advantage that you said doesnt get them any further than the next student in the long run.</p>
I said I don’t want to go any top schools myself, but I’m sick of people seeing AA as effective and FAIR. As I’ve said before, I’m frustrated about my english teacher forcing us to write about the glories of AA. That or she would fail me. So i’m not angry about AA because I wouldn’t have the same advantages as minorities; I feel indignant about AA in general. </p>
<p>Also,at Princeton,Harvard,Yale, you could rely on your school’s brand to get ahead. </p>
<p>
Cite said “studies”. Plus, even if that were true, I guess the right thing to do would be to implement reverse discrimination, right? </p>
<p>AA is not just implemented in college admissions but also government jobs as well. </p>
<p>And what the hell is an African American name? African Americans have the same last names as white people (their ancestors adopted their slaveowner’s last names).</p>
<p>Among other things, UCLA considers hardships, how the student rose above them, some contextual factors such as " linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home."</p>
<p>So, many kids whose families struggle, live in some of the circumstances you described, dangerous neighborhood, crappy schools, financial struggles, etc, do get recognition for how they rose above that. If you are there- or if you get in- or wherever you are or transfer to, whether it’s a CSU or other, make the best of it and let others do the same. It’s my last comment on this.</p>
<p>Annoying, you’ve never heard of the studies where ethnic names are more likely to get passed over by employers? Man, there have been so many studies, articles talking about te studies, and mention in films that I’m surprised that someone, who seems to be “passionate” about race and African Americans, doesn’t know about it. </p>
<p>You don’t know what an African American/Black/ethnic name is?</p>
<p>Keisha Brown. Tyrone Smith. LaTrisha Jenkins…just to name a few.</p>
<p>Although I see the costs and negative points of affirmative action, overall I approve of it. I came from a comfy, middle class home. My parents couldn’t afford to buy me a lot but they bought me everything that impacted my education. However, I come from a lower middle or middle class community with many minorities so I constantly see those that have the ability to do well at these top tier schools where, quite honestly, they probably wouldn’t have been accepted. </p>
<p>Also, its not like with AA, every minority that applies will get in. If a minority applies to a top ten school, he or she will have to have close to match or equal scores and qualifications to get in.</p>
<p>Blatant racism is ok if it’s purpose is to promote equality. Paradoxes don’t exist.</p>
<p>Shouldn’t socioeconomic status should be a more influential factor than “Please indicate how you identify yourself?”…seeing as how the cause of educational troubles would have more to do with family troubles/wealth than the color of one’s skin?</p>
<p>Are there studies that control all other factors apart from race and see how one’s skin really affects pre-college education?</p>
<p>petersuu: “African American is anyone from Africa, white or black.”</p>
<p>In the context of college admissions, your assertion doesn’t hold water. North Africans and Africans of European ancestry who have transplanted to the USA, for college admissions purposes are not considered as under represented minorities.</p>