<p>^^ Meritocracy does not only apply to test scores when applying to college - that is, but one form of meritocracy. Meritocracy is fundamentally about whom executes better in any activity. Politics and those who seek power is a meritocracy because anyone can run, and if they execute a better campaign than the other person, can win.</p>
<p>^ Colleges are a place for leaning and research. Therefore, “merit” would be based on academics, such as SATs, GPA, and academic competitions. I think the only reason why colleges favor athletes is for the money. There’s nothing that brings in more money than college football or basketball. </p>
<p>Race and background would not be considered “merit.”</p>
<p>Merit in art or politics would be something different. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In theory. If the incumbent politicians change the rules to favor themselves (e.g. gerrymandered districts and anything relating to voting registration and access to the extent that it encourages or discourages people with specific partisan leanings to vote), then the playing field may not be completely fair.</p>
<p>Of course, getting elected relies on sales skills, while governing relies on other skills. It is often the case that someone with good enough sales skills to get elected does not have good other skills that relate to governing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree. I was just responding to the post above mine, as to why leaders do not have to take intelligence tests. Read the post directly above mine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough point, if the world were static, but it is not. And in many cases, that is seen, as a good thing. </p>
<p>I highly doubt the Congressional Black Caucus would complain. Half of the black congressman would not exist if not for gerrymandered districts where it is all but impossible for a white person to gain traction. A white person can still run and win, but that would be like climbing Mt. Everest</p>
<p>Also, people in power do have the right to exercise that power and has the right to protect that power within legal limits. We may not like how they do it, but they can. Gerymandering etc. still does not change the fact that a person can enter; it just makes it harder for them to win, and they have to run a more effective campaign. If we do not like this fact, then they should be term-limited and take the power issue off the table.</p>
<p>The biggest advantage for the incumbents is that it is easier for them to bring in the bribes (the US is one of the few countries on Earth where bribing politicians, i.e., “campaign donations,” is legal). They are in a position to prove they can be bribed and those who prove that the most convincingly get the most bribes. With the name recognition from incumbency, the fear of change that most voters have, the bigger war chest, and the gerrymandered district, it is usually pretty easy to win reelection.</p>
<p>The reason why we have affirmative action is so that every school doesn’t end up like UC- Berkeley or UCLA. I’m not gonna specify any race, but look at the break down of races on College Board. When you get rid of affirmative action, one race tends to take over. I’m not gonna say who, but you can look at the trends in the UCs to see who I’m taking about. Affirmative action doesn’t only help minorities. It makes sure the campuses aren’t dominated by one race or ethnicity. It helps EVERYONE. You don’t just automatically get in because you are black. You still have to work for it. But there are something’s that are unique to the minority experience that Caucasians don’t face. Also, look at underprivileged students. Whether white or black. They take that into account because when you are poor, you have a different experience than those who are middle class and wealthy. Why do you think they ask for so much detail on the FAFSA why do you think they ask for Family History on the common app? They try to make it as fair as possible for everyone.</p>
<p>Are there studies about how socioeconomic affirmative action does not produce racial or ethnic diversity?</p>
<p>Maybe it’s not “ideal”, but I also wonder how many colleges that aren’t urban would attract urban kids, or vice versa how many colleges that are not rural would attract rural kids.</p>
<p>Yes, in affect they should. However, they do it to level the diversity on college campuses. For example, despite making up a significant portion of the American population, African Americans and Hispanic Americans only make up a extremely small portion of the college population, especially at top schools.</p>
<p>If we look at an example where race is not taken into account, take a look at the state of California. There, it is illegal for colleges to make admission decisions based off race. There you see a very large Asian American population and subsequently a smaller but still present white population, and a very very small portion of Hispanic or African Americans. </p>
<p>Colleges believe diversity will lend itself to greater experiences in learning about other cultures and making campuses more balanced. Imagine you are a minority, would you feel comfortable at a campus where you make up 1% of the population? Probably not.</p>
<p>While I don’t necessarily agree with it, and believe it should be phased out at some point, it has taken some role in the decision process, although it is illegal to base decisions just on race. For me, I’d rather see socioeconomic diversity, which I think is more important, than cultural, but that’s the way it is.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the hispanic student is still qualified, and perhaps he had some intangible capabilities that the other didn’t. Great essays? Unique extracurriculars? ect. It’s impossible to judge without knowing the whole story</p>
<p>2 Reasons.</p>
<p>1st) They follow the mentality of “college education = good life” so they view it as their role to help social mobility by providing the “less fortunate” aka minorities an advantage to climb up the social ladder.</p>
<p>2nd) When UCLA"s black enrollment numbers dropped the media was all over it. One of the draw backs of being nationally recognized is everyone has a spot light on these universities so they are under a social scrutiny to keep minority enrollment numbers up. </p>
<p>I can see that point of view. However, as a hispanic student myself, I wouldn’t want to have an upper hand in the admissions process because of my race. I wouldn’t feel comfortable at a campus where I was less accomplished and an inferior candidate than everyone else. </p>
<p>@ 2shawnspencer</p>
<p>“Furthermore, the hispanic student is still qualified, and perhaps he had some intangible capabilities that the other didn’t.” I used to think that as well but It’s not the case. I’ve seen it myself too, people that are less qualified in every aspect get in other others who are more qualified because of an arbitrary reason. (legacy, race, etc.) </p>
<p>You don’t give any example of an inferior student so your question makes no sense. They were virtually even. Sometimes one kid gets in and another doesn’t. There are limited slots. If a school sees a lot of similar type applicants, they are going to go for diversity - that may be racial diversity, geographic diversity, diversity of talent and skills. That is how they choose to build a community. If you don’t like it you are certainly welcome to turn down an offer but it is really foolish. I guess he isn’t going to college now, huh? Too principled?</p>
<p>If there are limited slots, then shouldn’t colleges be looking to pick the best possible candidates?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, many public universities in California have high Latino populations, due to the high Latino population in California (38% overall, higher in the southern part of the state), although Latinos are still somewhat underrepresented overall.</p>
<p>60% CSULA
40% UCM
37% CPP
37% CSULB
36% UCR
32% SDSU
28% UCSC
24% UCSB
24% SJSU
20% UCLA
14% UCB
14% CPSLO</p>
<p>However, black people are only about 7% of California’s population, and the percentage of black students in most California publics is quite low.</p>
<p>19% CSUDH
12% CSUEB
7% UCM
6% UCR
5% CSULA
4% CSULB
4% SDSU
4% UCSB
4% SJSU
4% UCB
3% CPP
3% UCLA
2% UCSC
1% CPSLO</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCs are heavy into SES-affirmative-action, and have relatively good in-state financial aid. CSUs have always been low cost schools, particularly for local commuters, but their admissions is based on just academic stats, campus/major applied to, and state and local area residency.</p>
<p>
I will assume by best, you mean metrics like scores and grades and maybe some ECs. Indeed, that’s how most colleges DO admit their students. And you have many many schools to choose from who practice this. About 85% of US colleges solely admit on the features you describe as “best”, that is based on metrics of GPA and tests. (Many European and Asian colleges practice this as well.) I</p>
<p>But guess what? I posit that among the ingredients that make these schools so highly regarded is a mixture of many things. Super resources in facilities, faculty – stemming from huge endowments. Great tradition and reputation. Fantastic alumni groups and support.</p>
<p>Oh, and let’s not forget the students themselves right? It’s they who people the community service projects, work in the research labs, write the plays and lyrics and sports columns, carve and paint the art pieces, have the late night bull sessions about everything under the sun. And how are these marvelous collections of students generated? By generating an excel spreadsheet and picking the top 1200 or 1500 scoring applicants? No friggen way.</p>
<p>This body is incredible in large part due to the methods and admissions strategies of the schools themselves. This means bringing in scholar athletes, super musicians, super scientists, great student leaders, actors, singers, outstanding examples of overcoming unusual circumstances, people from across the globe – and yes, even the occasional marginal child/grandchild of a wealthy super-donor. And some of these people will have brown skin too.</p>
<p>People seem to think you have your cake and eat it too. They would demand that these colleges – turn into the other 85%. But here’s the rub. It’s these 15% that are the ones that mostly populate the (take your pick) so-called Best Colleges lists.</p>
<p>If people want to go to a school that doesn’t give preferences to athletes and legacies – go ahead. Plenty to choose from.</p>
<p>I tell you, if the Ivies I applied to were 50% wealthy white and 45% Asian, I wouldn’t have wanted to attend them. </p>
<p>BTW: your “best” candidates probably are applying from overseas. But they always get the short end of the stick at all top US colleges.</p>
<p>They apply in higher proportion to the quota of slots allocated to them. But they have, in general, better SATs than the avg white/Asian American. But they face the stiffest odds. Why? Because the college has allocated that sub-group a fixed no. of seats and they battle it out for those golden tickets.</p>
<p>Where’s the outcry for their “injustice”? Have you ever seen an editorial saying: “Top Korean or Indian students deserve to get into Ivy A or big name tech college B but Americans with lesser scores are keeping them out! We demand this unfairness end now!” Nope. You hear crickets.</p>
<p>I highly doubt your two “applicants” are real. If you truly cared about finding out why affirmative action is necessary, you would do a quick google search. I also think it’s funny how you compare those two students side by side by something as arbitrary as similar SAT scores and gpas. Colleges use those two to determine whether you’re in ballpark. I can guarantee you several white kids who scored less than 2250 entered those “Ivies” as well. You have no idea what these “applicants’” essays were like nor do you know the quality of “their” applications or what the colleges were looking for. You’re simply making an assumption, an inherently racist one, and I find that to be quite lazy. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your ideal college demographic composition?</p>
<p>^^yes in your example, it is certainly likely that they did pick the best candidate, what is funny is that you can’t see that.</p>
<p>@ubcalumnus: the college I attended had a mix like this: 15% Asian, 8% African American, 3-4% Hispanic, about 10% Internationals. They actively recruited across the SES spectrum and is very generous w/fin aid. I can say I found it ideal. But that’s me. (Asian kid from a Midwest urban school district)</p>