<p>This post was made LAST night (Thursday, April 16th) So don't try to tune into the debate today, but do join the discussion ... especially if you caught some of the live debate yesterday.</p>
<p>Jeannine C. Lalonde, Assistant Dean of Admission at the University of Virginia, posted this notice today on the NACAC (National Association for College Admission Counseling) listserv. Since the pros and cons of Affirmative Action have been hotly debated on CC, I thought that I should pass the information along to those of you who might want to catch tonight's debate: </p>
<p>
[quote]
UVa's Miller Center for Public Affairs and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions have been sponsoring a series of debates on major issues for the past few years. I think tonight's debate will be especially interesting to those on the listserve. The participants will discuss whether affirmative action should consider wealth and class instead of race and ethnicity.</p>
<p>On the pro side is Dalton Conley (NYU Dept of Sociology Chair) and John McWhorter (Manhattan Institute for Policy Research). On the con side is Julian Bond (Chairman of the NAACP & UVa Dept of History) and Lee Bollinger (President of Columbia University).</p>
<p>All Miller Center debates are webcast. I assume a link will be somewhere on the website:</p>
<p>In a word, yes. Rich minority applicants haven’t been exposed to the conditions which would cause reduced objective performance like poor white or Asian applicants. The latter needs the boost caused by reduced academic standard more than the forme, it true.</p>
<p>yes a poor white kid from the slums deserves it more than a rich lebanese kid from upstate new york
just like a poor thai girl from East St. Louis deserves it more than a wealthy white kid from LA</p>
<p>It shouldn’t be based on it skin color, it should be based on the obstacles that they’ve had to overcome.
but I still support flawed affirmative action over none</p>
<p>a) White Student: I agree, there is no more need for Affirmative Action on racial discrimination grounds but only on waealth and class because it is unfair to give full advantage on a high-income minority family vs a low income white family.
Can everyone see that there is no more racial discrimination, even our president is Black!<br>
The boost and bonus given to minority rich students by admissions is entirely unfair! </p>
<p>b) Black Student: I disagree, not only we still need Affirmative Action but we should enforce it and reinforce it till there is true a racial blind society in all the areas of our society.
We should correct the wrongs and discrimination of past policies over several centuries.
According to the numbers we need seven (7) more African American presidents in succession to even the odds of % of presidents vs the % of the population.
O.B. was the result of the Affirmative Action of past years. </p>
<p>AP</p>
<p>p.s.
NYU is proud to receive any student that can afford the sky rocketing school bill without asking FA.
Columbia is proud to declare that 50% of its students are “students of color”.
If you are white and poor … guess what are your chances.</p>
<p>Yes, but only if you live below poverty or in some kind of similar situation. But I still support Affirmative Action for URMs. But you do have a good point, the poor white/asian kid should definitely have an advantage over the rich black kid.</p>
<p>But in short, IF there should be any kind of affirmative action, it should be by social class ONLY. </p>
<p>If anyone just wants to read opinions of others, most of page 4 to the end of the thread in that thread I linked is really this this discussion here.</p>
<p>It should ALL matter. Every bit of it. Look at the whole person and have some pretty logical heads in admissions and you wouldn’t need affirmative action anymore. We certainly have come a long way in going color-blind in this country, but I would also agree that without some regulation by a force bigger than itself, it does risk going backwards in time!</p>
<p>3 kids from S school accepted to ivy league school. One was legacy. One was super-athlete and one was of color. Of course, the latter has one of the most sucessful surgeons in town as his father. That is clearly not the intent of affirmative action. We talk about lack of access, well, this kid enjoyed plenty of access. To test prep and a private education</p>
<p>The debate seems to be on a different question than “Should College Admissions Consider Social Class Instead of Ethnicity?” The justifications for advantages in college admissions for URM students have a somewhat different history and have been justified somewhat differently than those for AA.</p>
<p>@USNAgolden2014: Lebanese people (and other Middle Easterners for that matter) are considered White for census/college admissions standards, even though such classification is definitely wrong and even insulting.</p>
<p>I think I would just like it better if it was called “Access to Resources” and not social class. Consider access to resources of all varieties and attempt to create equality of opportunity for all. But, social classes? Some of the most refined and classy people I have ever known have lacked access to financial and academic resources.</p>
<p>Nope. How can you say that person from a better financial background doesn’t deserve it as much as a kid from the slums? That’s ridiculous! If one is born into a family with more money and has the aptitude and ethics to get into a great college, then he/she deserves the merit! So, you’re saying that a student from the slums with no working ethics and low grades/scores deserves the acceptance MORE THAN the former? How so? Hmm? How? It’s a matter of using the resources around you to the best of your abilities. If the latter didn’t do so and just slacked off and hoped to get into some top-tier college by using the race/social class card, that’s just ludicrous. </p>
<p>It’s a matter of who worked hard enough, has the aptitude, and skills to win this game.</p>
<p>Affirmative action has way too much weight in college admissions. If you look at the decisions threads in the Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford forums, you will see that black students are regularly admitted with SAT scores of 1850-2000. It’s ridiculous how much influence it has on decisions.</p>
<p>I used to be a big AA supporter, but after looking at a few of the Ivy League forums it’s hard not to notice the discrepancy between the scores of admitted white students vs. the scores of admitted URM students. Scores aren’t everything, but you don’t often see a white kid admitted to an ivy league school with scores in the 1850-2000 range, even if he/she has amazing EC’s. An URM on the other hand, could get away with having sub-par scores, as long as he/she has stellar EC’s, grades, etc. The bottom line is being an URM helps, A LOT. Most of what I’ve seen is just anecdotal evidence, but I believe someone posted the acceptance rates for URM students for a few top schools. They were significantly higher. I think most people would agree that a rich minority doesn’t deserve an advantage over a poor white kid, but it’s pretty complicated. In many ways I’m disgusted by AA and the blatant advantages that colleges give URMs, but the other part of me thinks that if AA were to be abolished, there would be no diversity, which is also upsetting… gahhh</p>
<p>African American students score lower on standardized tests for other groups. This is a real and noticeable trend. I don’t really believe it’s because standardized tests work “against” black or minority students, but it IS happening. Therefore, a 2000 for an African American student is equivalent to a higher score for a white or Asian student, as per the statistics. Are AA students capable of good SAT scores? Of course! Can African American students perform as well as white or Asian students? I certainly think so. But those schools would likely see it fair to look at SAT scores relevant to race.</p>
<p>For example, you’ll see that a score of 600 is from the 94th to the 96th percentile for African American students. You’ll also see that a score of 600 is from the 71st to 78th percentile for white students. This is a significant difference. Less than 6% of all African American students score higher than a 600 for each section; as a comparison, over 25% of all white students score over 600.</p>
<p>This might be a better way to explain it. Let’s take that score of 600.</p>
<p>Math: 600 for AA students (95th percentile) = 700 for white students (94th percentile)
Critical Reading: 600 for AA students (94th percentile) = 700 for white students (94th percentile)
Writing: 600 for AA students (94th percentile) = 700 for white students (95th percentile)</p>
<p>Therefore, an 1800 for AA students = a 2100 for white students.
Similarly (without explaining the whole thing again), a 2100 for AA students = 2250 for white students.</p>
<p>I think a great kid with a terrific academic profile who has jerks for parents, even rich jerks, should get some points for turning out so well despite that upbringing. I don’t know if it works that way, but I can tell you if I were an admissions officer (which I am not) and saw that situation first hand, it would be a consideration. </p>
<p>BUt with thousands of apps out there, it is not easy to be able to pick out such situations. But if a counselor or teacher brings up the adversity that a student has had to overcome, including that of terrible parents or home situation, I would think that would be taken into account.</p>