<p>No it’s not fair. Then again, neither is life, and neither are college admissions in general</p>
<p>It’s not accurate to claim that quotas do not exist because of the Bakke case. Colleges have gotten around the law by claiming they are looking for “diversity”. In the end, most elite schools have the same ethic composition because they are “diverse”</p>
<p>Either way, you cannot deny that it is “easier” for certain URMs to gain admission into highly competitive universities. No matter what the reason (bringing people up the ranks), the idea is one of socialism and should be banned.</p>
<p>The idea that the wealthier families pay the tuition of the poorer families is also “socialism” with that logic. Should Financial Aid be banned too?</p>
<p>not really. most asians just don’t really know how to play the game ;)</p>
<p>Well, financial aid is a socialist idea, you’re right. And, I don’t think that’s necessarily fair either. I obviously support financial aid, but I think there should be a combination of merit and need based. For instance, I wasn’t elligible to apply for financial aid, and most of my schools don’t award merit based. And even though I may be more qualified, why do I have to pay full tuition?</p>
<p>There are two sides to every argument.</p>
<p>By the way, I was just playing the devil’s advocate… I don’t agree with affirmative action, and I’m in a full pay family and I will most likely not be able to attend where I have been accepted to because schools have risen tuition so much.</p>
<p>Dumb argument, swimguy and kmhuether.</p>
<p>As far as I know, there have been no legal cases which require any private organization to allow anyone to participate even if they cannot pay for their membership (for instance, country clubs don’t have to give financial aid). However, these private institutions have decided that as part of their operating mission they want to create a diverse environment, including diversity of socio-economic class. They’ve chosen their own way to assure that was the case. If you don’t support that private organization or their mission feel free to not become a part of it.</p>
<p>The Federal government isn’t collecting your tax money and giving it away, unless you consider using that money as a reserve to offer low interest loans to those who demonstrate need (who will still need to pay interest) socialism.</p>
<p>"There are two sides to every argument. "</p>
<p>Why does everyone say this? There are MORE than 2 sides to every argument. We need to expand our capacities for debate in this country. </p>
<p>Also affirmative action does not exist in California. It is illegal. So there is nothing to agree or not agree with. Unless you are talking about a school in a state where it is legal. </p>
<p>"It’s not accurate to claim that quotas do not exist because of the Bakke case. Colleges have gotten around the law by claiming they are looking for “diversity”. In the end, most elite schools have the same ethic composition because they are “diverse”</p>
<p>PROVE IT. This is such a load of garbage. If there were quotas proportionate to the population then the ethnic composition of the UC system would be predominantly Latino, which is certainly not the case. </p>
<p>Look there are UC requirements and if you meet them you have the OPPORTUNITY to be selected to a UC school. How the schools choose to do that is their choice as long as they are compliant with the law. So let’s try to deal in REALITY and not in fantasies of the Right.</p>
<p>As a Taiwanese American I used to always complain about this type of thing
but I know it’s only because of the educational focus / ivy league fetish brewing in a lot of middle class families (regardless of race) </p>
<p>yes - some colleges factor in race as part of the CONTEXT of a student / some other random ineffable quality that they’ve invented. whether or not this is legitimate is obviously up for debate, but whether or not some colleges participate in this practice is not - it’s pretty much a given.</p>
<p>The controversy surrounding affirmative actions effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class minorities at the expense of lower class Caucasians and Asians.</p>
<p>College Acceptance Rates (2005)[21] Overall Acceptance Rate Black Acceptance Rate % Difference
Harvard University 10.0%(overall), 16.7%(black), +67.0%(difference)
MIT 15.9%(overall), 31.6%(black), +98.7%(difference)
Brown 16.6%(overall), 26.3%(black), +58.4%(difference)
Penn 21.2%(overall), 30.1%(black), +42.0%(difference)
Georgetown 22.0%(overall), 30.7%(black), +39.5%(difference) </p>
<p>A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):</p>
<p>Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: 50!!!
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160</p>
<p>@ modest melody. I didn’t say that private institutions actually practiced socialism. I said, the ideas were socialist/ communist (trying to even out class differences). Whether you agree with that or not, no one can argue it is “easier” for certain races to gain admission into certain colleges.
And, as far as I’m concerned, public schools do use our tax money</p>
<p>So, let’s go back to the middle ages! Screw class justice or equalization, we should go back to a legalized caste system!</p>
<p>In all seriousness, you people have absolutely no idea what “socialism” means. I am sick of hearing right wing nuts complain about socialism, when what they really mean is social—aiming to help the each other. Socialism is an economic philosophy which argues that government should own the means of production. Socialism would be the government buying up institutions of higher learning. Racial diversity has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>Personally, I think family income should be a much bigger factor than URM status. It’s a lot harder for a white student from a poor family to do well than a black student from a middle class family.</p>
<p>However, we shouldn’t eliminate the idea of racial diversity either. Different cultures bring different things to the table, and college is an important time to grow and expand through learning about other cultures.</p>
<p>You’re right. The Nazis stood for such amazing values. Socialism also aims, with government owned production, to equalize classes through government intervention. The united states was founded on free markets and capitalism. If you want to live in a socialist nation, then move elsewhere or read some Ayn Rand and change your upside down views. There’s nothing wrong with rational self interest. We should not feel guilty for being successful or be pressured to help anyone but ourselves.
I can’t state any of this better than Ayn Rand. So if you feel like getting some new perspective, read the sections of Atlas Shrugged “The moral meaning of Capitalism” and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” I’m not trying to argue anymore, but this is an amazing read. </p>
<p>Also>> I found this to be SCARY [Rasmussen</a> Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere](<a href=“http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism]Rasmussen”>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism)</p>
<p>socialism: it’s unamerican. </p>
<hr>
<p>no, but really. let’s not wave around one study from 2005 about SAT points & race without mentioning that basically every basic statistic measured by the U.S. census shows the advantages white people as a group have.</p>
<p>i guess the question of affirmative action is should we let the status of the group have an effect on the outcome of the individual</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>3 points:
- Grow up, Republican. I have read Ayn Rand, and she is a total nutjob like you. Just look at what the “free market” and “capitalism” have done to our economy and our populace. Also, nobody said there’s anything wrong with self-interest. You can be self-interested while also helping others.
- This thread must be too long, since you’ve violated Godwin’s law.
- You’re own analogy is painfully sad. Just look at it. You’re arguing against helping minorities by citing the evilest minority persecutors of all time. You’re right: helping minorities is EXACTLY what the Nazis did.</p>
<p>Ugg… CC is getting overrun with Objectivist zealots.</p>
<p>Any Rand followers are beyond republican. classical liberals is more apt.</p>
<p>So, you can honestly tell me that you (or anyone midly sane) believes the upper class should be obligated to pay for others (whom they don’t know)? There is no principle behind that. I believe in charity and I’m not saying we shouldn’t accept minorities, at all. But I think there’s a difference between accepting the oppressed, or someone who’s grown up in unusual circumstances and just accepting a URM.
And I’m not a republican, Libertarians are quite different.
The question is not to be or not to be, but rather “to think or not to think.” No one deserves anything just by being.</p>
<p>True, but they usually support Republicans (or, Ron Paul).</p>
<p>I dont think asians are being “discrimminated”</p>