<p>I can perhaps concede that URM’s should be given a boost in admissions, or at least there can be legitimate debate on this topic.
I see no valid reason as to why whites should have it easier than Asians for college admissions, why can’t they at the least be given equal consideration? I suspect if this were to occur top
Colleges would go from
40% white and 20% Asian to 20-25% white and 35-40%
Asian.</p>
<p>No, URMs should NOT be given a boost in admissions.</p>
<p>People of any color or background who grew up poor SHOULD be given a boost in admissions, that is, certain criteria should be relaxed. Like if your HS offers one AP class, and you don’t take it because it is not your interest, and the person 50 miles away has 20 AP classes to choose from and the opportunity to take AP classes online.</p>
<p>The biggest difference I saw at my alma mater (non-HYP Ivy) is that the rich people were the rich people, and then there were the middle class people, and then the poor people. Someone whose family is getting by on $50K per year has MUCH less in common with a millionaire’s kid, regardless of the race of either party.</p>
<p>Race- and ethnicity-based affirmative action in admissions is dumb. My nephews are rich and half-Puerto Rican. They don’t even know Spanish. They look white and they went to a well-off suburban HS. Why should they get any AA benefit? Conversely, why should a poor white person NOT get an AA benefit?</p>
<p>PS - I probably mentioned this earlier, but we’ve got plenty of Asians of all backgrounds where I teach college, and most are not geniuses or hard-workers. Probably related to where I teach, but it is more likely because of the honors college that hard-working US citizens (most Asians at our school are non-citizens) are the smartest kids purely based on GPA and SAT and outcomes. Positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes are both bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides Amherst and Berea, two I can think of off the top of my head that do say they give this preference, are there any others anyone knows of?</p>
<p>Amherst says that all things being equal they’ll give the bump to the poorer applicant. Berea (which gives free tuition to all students) won’t even allow you to apply if your family earns more than around $60K. Maybe one or two other work colleges (Ozarks) are like that…</p>
<p>I’d love to see a list of colleges that give a significant bump to low income kids. Maybe to first-gen too though I think a lot of them do say that…</p>
<p>There is no question that one’s economic situation is already factored into the admission process along with the educational level of the parents. Example a black kid from a poor community with grades and a 2120 is getting in before a black kid who is upper class with a 2160 whose parents are college educated. I think these concepts are already in play and ad coms talk openly about environment and first generation.
I cannot speak for other communities but I do disagree with the idea as an African American whose children would be considered upper middle class that they have more in common with children of other ethnicities who are of the same economic status. As a parent we see it in their fraternal or sorority choices the groups on campus they join and their social tastes. Unfortunately there is still a color barrier. When stopped for driving DWB the officer does not judge one’s economic status, it’s the ethnicity coupled with being someplace that that ethnicity is not at a critical mass driving a car that some officer thinks exceeds the norm. When in a store and followed by the security officer it’s an ethnic decision not a economical one. You may say what does this have to do with choices on a college campus. When so many things occur in your life that are ethnically driven whether positive or negative you will seek support and comfort and understanding from those who can relate. Your much more concerned about how to deal with or solve a problem then someone’s economic status.
Can’t speak for other communities but on my and my children’s college campus. There was still much more of a delineation based on culture than economics when it came to the social segments of the college experience. It’s kind of like church. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Problem is, ignoring race and giving a boost to low socioec-status will not enable colleges to fulfill their diversity objectives because in absolute numbers, there are more poor white kids. </p>
<p>In any case, the interesting issue surfaced in Fisher v UT was that colleges want “diversity within diversity”. Admitting on the basis of class rank or giving preference to low SES results in admitting URM kids who are poor, thus solidifying the perception that URM=poor. Lawyer for UT explained that it is desired to have rich URM kids, too. </p>
<p>look at the numbers from harvard, 20% of their UG’s are 1%ers, only like 5% are from the bottom quintile. If they even adjust for economic situation, it’s not anywhere near enough.
@Mayihelp
Your claim is ridiculous, kids have way more in similar (at least in determining their possibility for academic success) with other kids from their income group, not ethnic group.
Let’s compare a rich black and poor asian.
who’s going to the school in the ghetto filled with killings and stabbings and drug dealing? the poor asian living in the ghetto or the rich black living in the suburb?
Who’s working 20hrs/week as a part time to support his family?
Who lives in a shady neighborhood with poor influences?
Who’s family can support expensive extracurriculars like private music lesson and expensive sports like tennis/golf or really most sports get to be pretty expensive at higher levels?
Who’s family can afford private tutoring and expensive test prep?
Who’s family can hire private counseling for college and essentially get the application essay written by a professional?
Who’s family can provide transportation to distant volunteering/job opportunities?</p>
<p>But right, it’s perfectly logical and morally correct to make it easier for rich blacks to get into colleges than a poor asian as is presently the case. </p>
<p>Colleges only care PC and providing a good image to the outside, and as such affirmative action is strong and still going at elite colleges as it would be awful for public perception if they got rid of it and watched URM numbers drop; the media would rip them apart. </p>
<p>@theanaconda If we got rid of AA across the board, essentially every top 20 college would have only Asians and Caucasians in them. When you look at SAT scores by race, you can see why AA is needed. Because if you are in the 99th percentile of Hispanic scorers, you’re actually in around the 90th percentile of Asian scorers which is a HUGE disparity. And besides, you go to college to grow as a person. You don’t know that because you are in high school still, but college is more than just taking classes. You grow socially, morally, and as a person. I’m order to do that, you need to be exposed to those who are different than you. That is why there is such a heavy emphasis on socioeconomic, religious, and racial diversity in college. </p>
<p>Also, look at sports coaches. Before the Rooney Rule in football, there were practically no minority coaches. Were the white coaches somehow more qualified? No. But owners only wanted white people coaching their teams. That’s why AA is needed</p>
<p>why can’t hispanics and blacks score well? it appears all of these arguments are based on the idea that since the average is lower, a motivated individual has no chance of breaking the average and doing well - this is certainly not the case.</p>
<p>^^ That is a no brainer question, but I suspect you knew that. Of course they can score well if it is expected by their school, their teachers, but most of all by their parents and that scoring well is embedded as part of their cultural expectations. </p>
<p>There is a point where certain actions can do more harm than good. The relevant question is this: why in the world raise one’s standard if, by government policy decree, you can get the same place by having a lower standard? Only an idiot works harder to get to the same place as if he worked less. If there was a policy to institutionalize lower standards, it could not be better written. Good intentions is one thing; however, how a policy is culturally interpreted and how it affects people’s behavior in reality are completely different things.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats
Colleges do far less than they say about socioeconomic status, the numbers don’t lie. 20% of the students at harvard are 1%ers, poor people are far more underrepresented than the rich. and could you explain to me why 20% asian and 40% white constitutes diversity while the converse does not constitute diversity? leave aside the URM question for now. </p>
<p>so in the best interest of their learning environment colleges institute AA and harm deserving students in the process? Ok, then why don’t they just put a large portion, maybe 1/4 or 1/3 of their spots on sale at an auction so they can raise enough funds to make tuition free for the rest? that’s making the experience cheaper and better for the rest, right? would you have any objection to that? in principle that’s what affirmative action is, asians are denied from gaining the 20% of college seats they’d gain otherwise to make the “experience” better (which is questionable in its own aspect, i fail to see how a suburban african american kid who’s living the same life of luxury as his asian or caucasian peers adds more diversity to the student body to them or compared to the urban ghetto asian). </p>
<p>@foolish You could go on the college board and research the correlation between ethnicity and test scores. No one is saying that minorities cannot score well. It’s just that a smaller percentage scores over 2000 than that of other races. An 1850 is in the 90th percentile for African Americans. That is likely due to the lack of opportunities receive simply because they are African American. </p>
<p>@theanaconda I never said that 20% white and 40% Asian doesn’t constitute as diversity. That is diverse. In my opinion, a diverse school body is when no race represents more than 50% of the student body.</p>
<p>I feel as though you are arguing for segregation. From what you post, it seems as though you see absolutely no merit in ethnic diversity in anyway. You don’t see the value of making sure that minorities are included in college. You don’t see that value in having races interact with each other. It’s disturbing and borderline racist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The research does not support you though. Similar poor whites and poor asians outperform African Americans, while attending the same schools and living in the same downtrodden-type neighborhoods. </p>
<p>I think it has a lot to do with the importance placed on educational achievement.</p>
<p>A white kid raised by black parents who push him to succeed… is likely (all else equal) to succeed.</p>
<p>And a black kid raised by white parents who push him to succeed… same deal.</p>
<p>It <em>has to be</em> environmental, or we’re talking about genetic-based intelligence.</p>
<p>never mind :)</p>
<p>@prezbucky
it’s not genetic based, it’s purely environmental. for whatever rreason, asian immigrants stress education severely. just see the original tiger mom lol. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read what @theanaconda wrote very differently. I understood it to mean that people seem to think race determines outlook, morals and what you believe when in fact that has much more to do with SES and other factors.</p>
<p>An argument could be made that it is also borderline racist to think that people of one race think the same so much so that by having the different races together automatically equals diversity of thought and interaction. The last thing I do is look at someone and because of his race (or gender for that matter) automatically think he thinks the same or differently that I do on any range of issues for I have not a clue. To assume as much to me is racist because what one believes is in the brain cells not in the skin cells, and I am not a mind reader. </p>
<p>EDIT: In post #842, @theanaconda explained what I interpreted his post to mean as well. So, I did read it correctly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think? 
</p>
<p>@awcntdb I’m talking about the outright job discrimination against minorities. That affects opportunities. Look at the ABC study where they submitted the exact same resume with “white names” and “ethnic names”. The resume with the white name was hired 6 times more if I am not mistaken. It has a huge impact. I also recommend watching Freakonomics as well.</p>
<p>Also, it seems it’s not only about moral growth. It’s about general growth and maturity as a person. The only way you can really effectively transition into adulthood is by being around those who are different. Colleges don’t just want to make bright students. They want to make motivated adults who want to discover something and change the world around them some way. That is why so much emphasis is put on traveling abroad. Because it’s hard to become that mature person who will impact the world without being exposed to different cultures and ethnicity. I fail to see how arguing for diversity is racist in anyway.</p>
<p>@AnnieBeats
I think in one of my earlier posts I did acknowledge the discrimination against minorities in the job market, and it indeed is truly deplorable? However, do you really think affirmative action for college education is the best way to address this problem? surely affirmative action in the job market (or strengthening it), or covering up the name of the application becoming a standard practice (at least the minority could get an interview in this case) would be more appropriate solutions?</p>
<p>Furthermore, do you think it’s appropriate for affirmative action to punish another minority in the way it’s currently executed? the premise of your argument is that affirmative action is the remedy to white privilege, yet it currently discriminates against a minority group in it’s execution so that seems inconsistent. Or is your logic that since Asians are so high achieving they should simply power through yet another layer of discrimination? That would be well past borderline racist.
Set aside the URM question for a while, I believe that there are many logical points and reasons one could make in favor of helping them in admission even if I don’t agree with it.
But I see no valid reason, none at all, that can logically and morally explain making admission harder for a minority group like Asians. Earlier you said you would view 40% Asian and 20% white as diverse, yet it’s obvious colleges don’t agree with you as they cap Asians to about 20% (by contrast berkely which doesn’t practice affirmative action is 43% Asian, a dramatic increase from when it practiced affirmative action). So what reasoning do you have for this feature of affirmative action? Discrimination against Asian Americans is the main reason I an against affirmative action as it is currently practiced.</p>