<p>^^
Good point. It would be very interesting. Perhaps the whole thing is overblown.</p>
<p>Post #16 - Agree with this completely. Simply using income level is not indicative of an applicant’s “disadvantage.” (Setting aside fraud in reporting income, which I have no doubt occurs on a not-irregular basis), there are plenty of elite college grads, lawyers, and Ph.D.s who, for one reason or another (including simply by choice), have incomes in the low ranges. Their children can hardly be said to be raised in academically disadvantaged environments.</p>
<p>^I can also attest that socioeconomic diversity isn’t always the way to go. There are plenty of higher income students in my school who are impeding by lack of a rigorous curriculum and a narrow spectrum of EC opportunities. These students should not be left out of the affirmative action bandwagon, if there is one.</p>
<p>Should we also apply some of the ideas on this thread to athletic recruitment at colleges? Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Both nothing or class-based is MUCH better than race-based.</p>
<p>The only reason race-based even came about was because they were assuming classes associated with those races.</p>
<p>My uncle was telling me about how when he was in law school there were a few blacks there and all of them were from wealthy families but they were all getting their tuition and such paid for because of their race, while many poorer white kids had to work jobs while keeping their grades up so they could continue to pay for tuition. Doing nothing makes more sense than that and class-based would actually be aimed at the problem affirmative action was trying to fix in the first place.</p>
<p>I think that class bassed makes more sense than race based, though neither is really right. I think students should be judged against their opportunities, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its ok for poorer kids to get low grades while the rich kids have to get straight A’s to have the same admissions/employment shots. A poor kid absolutely does have the opportunity to get straight A’s. They might not, however, be able to afford expensive summer programs, etc. Or their school might not offer as many AP’s. A poor kid has the same oportunity to get a high class rank as any rich kid. Therefore, I think that economic backgorund should be taken into account for opportunities that exist for some people but not others (diversity of classes, expensive programs, etc.) but not for things like grades or class rank.</p>
<p>A poor kid has the same oportunity to get a high class rank as any rich kid.</p>
<p>Not if that poor kid has to work after school to help support his family leaving him with not enough time to do homework, etc.</p>
<p>But colleges don’t just income levels by the family’s income, they judge it by the neighborhood as a whole. As it, they are easier on a kid from a poorer neighborhood, not a kid whose parents don’t make much money. Since it is the kids of th eneighborhood that are being ranked against each other, it is assumed that they have the same academic opportunities. And yet, colleges are likely to be easier on everyoen from the neighborhood, not just the higher class-rank kids. the situation might be different if colelges actually had information about income of the individual, but they don’t–that only exists on financial aid applications, which are kept separate from admissions information. </p>
<p>Also, you can’t just assume that every kid from a low income family has to work to support the family. That would be legitamite reason to be more flexable about items like class rank. But we’re just talking about income, period.</p>
<p>You raise a valid point, aranyria. I wonder how colleges can determine whether a student is low-income, in order to give him/her that boost. I know upper-middle-class families who live in crumby school districts, and I know low-income families who have obtained transfers into good public schools. How would a college evaluate the disadvantages of a particular student without knowing their financial information?</p>