<p>There are many White and Asian applicants who are her equals who have also not enjoyed the economic resources many others have had. I thought you were against the socioeconomic AA idea?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh, so they no longer need AA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How would it still benefit URM’s?</p>
<p>The question I asked Shrinkrap a few weeks ago was that, suppose California decided to increase Asian representation in the workforce. That would mean that, to ensure that some spots are left for them, some African American and Hispanic job-seekers may be out of luck.</p>
<p>So in that sense, I suppose Asians are now considered URMs. If colleges suddenly developed that very approach, you would still support it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the only benefit is that the campus will now enjoy an aesthetically variegated student body, then that’s not really a benefit at all.</p>
<p>I really doubt that Harvard would see a precipitous decline in its 30k application if it suddenly decided to abandon AA.</p>
<p>Maybe URM’s who were previously relying on the AA boost will suddenly drop it, but then they would fall under the group of applicants “who apply just to apply.”</p>
<p>I’m assuming that “their situation” refers to socioeconomic conditions, which are presumably poor.</p>
<p>Every year, there’s always a feel good story about a poor student from a failing public school who makes it to Harvard. To protect their coveted rankings, however, elite universities cannot afford to admit too many of these students from poor backgrounds, who typically have lower SAT scores among other things. (There is a positive relationship between family income and student SAT score.)</p>
<p>Thus, the real winners are the lucky few who manage to actually get into Harvard or a peer institution. The losers? The unlucky others who saw the success of the lucky few and decided to give it a shot, perhaps without knowing that their chances are almost zero. How perverse.</p>
<p>I personally am not against it, but I certainly see why colleges don’t support it the way they support racial AA. But, colleges do take into account socioeconomic status when looking at an applicant, just not to the same degree as racial AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Have you read my argument? I’m mostly arguing for the colleges. But anyway, they would never need AA, but they still cannot afford the resources that a student from an expensive prep school in NYC or Long Island could afford, such as SAT prep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Job-seeking is far different from college admissions, as there is nowhere near the same amount of recruiting occurring for most jobs nowadays. And that’s one of the primary reasons why AA exists in schools. But, if there were fewer Asians in the workforce than they wanted, then I would support it. But, I’m not Hispanic or Black, so this wouldn’t adversely affect me anyway.</p>
<p>I concur with another poster - advancing a URM can have a positive effect on communities that have been told either overtly or subtly that those institutions were off limits to them. I’ve seen this effect myself.</p>
<p>It’s a lazy argument to say that because society views a URM with suspicion and “assumes” they are “less than.” doesn’t mean you take away an institution meant to eliminate the effects of legalized segregation and institutionalized systems that may take generations to erase.</p>
<p>What I find odd - is that these arguments are often advanced by people who are disproportionately represented in educations and applications compared to their percentage of the population.</p>
<p>It’s an academic argument, but has no bearing on real life. More often than not - those who are “taken” (affirmative action is pretty much a dead program - btw) often do as well or better than their peers. But instead, we look at a single litmus (a test score) to define who is good and who is not.</p>
<p>Also - while economic disparity is now a new a growing issue - when we begin to look at the system as a whole - URM’s were more likely to be shut out of the system despite comparable skills - hence less wealth, fewer resources, and stuck in environments where the educational opportunities are lower, and the “goals” for those children are set low. For a URM to rise above it despite the obstacles, suggests that test scores can be mitigated (within a reasonable range) by EC’s and other resume assets that suggest future success and a net positive cultural gain in society.</p>
<p>Also - a diverse campus will like draw more applications than one that is homogeneous.</p>
<p>Neither she nor the people she inspired have SAT scores as low as to disqualify them from Ivy admissions, not even close. Maybe the poor people here are just abnormally intelligent, but they seem to score just as well as the middle class and upper class students here. They are dedicated to their ECs as well. Test scores, as mentioned in Exie’s post, aren’t everything.</p>
<p>Ok so if AA were suddenly eliminated, it would not affect them in any way. They would still not be able to afford resources like SAT prep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that specific post, you seemed to imply that seeing one person succeed gives hope to others. If they are now primed for success not because they are now aware of AA but because they are now motivated to work hard, then AA means nothing to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why bring it up if you are unwilling to acknowledge that Whites and Asians may also exhibit those symptoms?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How? Admittedly, I’m turned off by a college that is all male or all white, but I can’t imagine any college’s application number dwindling because the African American population suddenly fell from 10% to 5% because that 5% wouldn’t have made it if it were not for AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you just said they don’t need AA! If AA were eliminated, they would still have the collegiate resources to succeed because they would have gotten in without AA anyway, right?</p>
<p>AA could help them by giving them the collegiate resources to succeed far and above what the numbers they earned shows they could.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re motivated to work hard, but some people would not view their accomplishments in the same light as they would view someone who had earned higher scores on certain academic tests.</p>
<p>Are you implying that we need to intervene in the process, or else no "URM"s will matriculate?</p>
<p>Also, the “eliminate…effects of legalized segregation and institutionalized systems” argument was not, is, and likely won’t ever be a Constitutional argument to support affirmative action. To date, there is one and only one legitimate rationale for supporting raffirmative action: the promotion of “diversity.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many pages ago, you said the same thing: “affirmative action is pretty much a dead program.” I ask you the same question I asked you then–if it’s dead, then why did so many people try so hard to get civil rights initiatives off the ballots of California, Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, Missouri, and Arizona?</p>
<p>I meant to italicize “need” but I guess it didn’t work. I just meant that with their accomplishments, when sized up next to other applicants to top schools, they would already stand a chance.</p>
<p>I echo what I wrote a few pages back. All this means is that the colleges benefit, but for the wrong reasons: “more applications” mean more application fee revenue and unless the incoming freshman class size is increased, higher selectivity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wrote “…among other things” for a reason, you know. I’m well aware that test scores aren’t everything.</p>
<p>What does “advancing a URM” mean to you, then? I don’t call admitting a “URM” the merits of his application “advancing a URM,” though I would call admitting a “URM” who would not have been admitted but for his protected minority status “advancing a URM.” Exie is of course free to disagree and clarify.</p>
<p>If they were on equal footing, they wouldn’t need AA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the difference is an acceptance versus a rejection, I’d say it’s enormous. Nonetheless, I largely agree with you. It’s just kind of annoying knowing you’re already behind because of your race.</p>
<p>I guess I’m going to argue on behalf of the students rather than the colleges now, but anyway, they would still benefit from AA and would stand an even greater chance at admission and therefore would assuredly encourage more poor URMs to succeed in school, hopefully one day rendering all races equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She (I think Exie is a she) said nothing about no URMs matriculating. Giving some URMs a little push in the admissions process doesn’t mean all URMs would stand no chance at admission otherwise. The fact that you managed to jump from “advancing a URM” to “no URMs would be admitted without AA” is a little startling.</p>
<p>If the boost is so slight, then surely they will get in even if the boost were eliminated?
Or, if an accepted URM would’ve been rejection if it were not for AA, then glasses is right in that it is an enormous boost indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who’s behind? I would argue that Asians are behind in the college race because they already know that everything their race can do for them is bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So an URM who would’ve been accepted without AA will still benefit from AA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. It does not mean that all URMs would stand no chance otherwise. </p>
<p>The only other conclusion that can be drawn is that AA’s elimination would cause some URM’s to stand no chance given their accomplishments, but some other URM’s would still stand a chance, and I have no problem with that.</p>
<p>There’s a chance they would not, but because college admissions is a crapshoot with so many factors involved, it is impossible to know for sure. You can’t pinpoint an admission down to just their race. Surely, something else also helped push them over the edge and into the accepted pile.</p>
<p>I asked you for clarification regarding your post in #737 a few pages back, but it got buried amid the discussion. I would like to bring it back.</p>
<p>I don’t follow your reasoning. You’re saying affirmative action is just a “slight boost” that helps push “a few” minority applicants into the admit pile. If so, then it’s natural to conclude that the admit pile already contains quite a few minority applicants who did not need the “slight boost”; their application is impressive enough by itself.</p>
<p>Yet, if we remove affirmative action, the minority students in the admit pile will be “much smaller and Berkeleyesque”? Doesn’t this comparative statics analysis suggest that the “slight boost” is in fact quite a large boost?</p>
<p>Interesting since it covered a fairly wide range of state schools, not just the elites we usually discuss here on CC. I found this passage interesting, coming from, I assume, conservative Bush supporters.</p>
<p>“Supporters of One Florida contend the weakening economy, starting in 2008; rising tuition; and limited growth in the university system have hampered efforts to attract more blacks and Hispanics, many of whom come from low-income families. Need-based scholarships help, Brogan said, but there are not enough of them.”</p>