<p>I’m definately not an expert on this subject, but I really do think it all comes back to class issues. Minorities, statistically, are more likely to be living in poverty than white people and that is what causes them do poorly on standardized tests. Crappy public schools translate to crappy standardized test scores. If they did AA based on economic status, it would certainly benefit the minorities that deserve that boost, as well as poor caucasian kids.</p>
<p>I think both factors should be weighed in holistically, and as I’m aware of it, both already are (and I’ve seen asians/whites with low test scores and the like get in from disadvantaged areas…I’m not sure how much of the “Rich black > poor white” thing is true, but w/e…).</p>
<p>Oh btw, just so it’s out there, I’m not an URM.</p>
<p>Raedne brought up a great point that I hadn’t noticed until recently as I’m making a career switch. Apparently, my Scottish-German-English heritage makes me somewhat Middle Eastern in the eyes of most companies (EEOC guidelines). AA as it is today might have been a good idea 40 years ago, but now AA fails to meet its goal. If economic background is not the main factor then what’s the point. Furthermore, if somehow Arab Americans, who have been discriminated against more than any other race since September 11th, 2001 are not considered minorities, then what’s the point of using race as a criteria at all?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it’s on right now (8:45 pm DST as I write this). Go to the Web site in the original post and click on “Affirmative Action” on the home page. That will take you to a new page where you can watch the debate in progress.</p>
<p>I did a research paper on affirmative action last year, and found that white women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, especially in the workforce. Why don’t people ever argue on that? (Honestly, just wondering.)</p>
<p>And I don’t even know how I feel about AA, even after the paper. I can see both sides, I can see how it might be necessary for some people, but I don’t always feel its fair. Then again, a lot of aspects of the admissions process are “unfair” (legacies, leeway for athletes, etc), so it sort of feels like if you’re going to change one thing, change them all.</p>
<p>Hmmm…Well, either way (race or income.) I would fall into the AA or “New AA” category. </p>
<p>Why can’t they combine or use both factors? We should raise minority <em>and</em> lower-income students enrollment.</p>
<p>@raedne That’s horrible! That is very insulting. I assumed that there was an arabian/persian/middle eastern category, I’m sorry I chose lebanese, that’s just the random nationality that jumped into my head XD
@yummymango
I am NOT saying that an 1800 AA should be admitted over a 2100 white
I AM saying that if given two candidates with equal scores/ecs/essays/recs that their background should count in their favor (IF it was bad, however I have no sympathy for anyone rich, no matter their ethnicity)
I’m white, my parents make >100k, but if x college had to admit the AA kid who also had a 2340 over me I’d be fine with it. Statistically speaking, my background will allow me to find an alternative that I can afford much more easily than an AA from a family that makes 50-65k a year</p>
<p>I’m just saying that AS A LAST RESORT/Final Step affirmative action should be used.
However, I do not support the quota system
“Well we need 500 blacks, 400 Hispanics, 1500 asians, and 200 native americans, and the white kids can fill the rest”
That is a flawed system, AA should factor into the last step, but it should not be used to guarantee that a certain number or percentage are represented.</p>
<p>A URM should not get in solely because they are a URM, but if their situation merits a boost up in the college process, they should receive it.
Hopefully, someday, America will be a true meritocracy that is completely colorblind (unfortunately I don’t see that actually happening for a long time)</p>
<p>Hopefully that clarifies my position YummyMango :)</p>
<p>This seems to be turning into a discussion about the integrity of the system with AA as a whole… I don’t think that was the point-question of the original post.</p>
<p>While I think AA is sometimes overdone (an opinion similar to that of many of the posters of this thread), my answer to Rubenstone is YES. Otherwise, wouldn’t I be saying that one’s URM status is more important than one’s socioeconomic status? The premise there is flawed, in that it subverts the experience of the individual to an artificially unintelligent guess in the mind of the AdCom. Would the system benefit from giving an edge to Barack Obama’s children? I say not at all; you can be black/hispanic/gay/diseased and still have lived a pampered life.
I’m not saying AA is good or bad, but I <em>am</em> saying that where it is applied, perhaps it would yield better results as “Affirmative Action for the Poor”. (Wait… where did I hear that before? [BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor](<a href=“Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg) )</p>
<p>AA should benefit low income students. End of discussion. A poor white or asian kid has as much to overcome as a poor minority. No doubt. And I am a minority who was admitted to HYPS schools with sub 2000 sats. But I am also first generation and low income, which I hope was more of a factor than race.</p>
<p>affirmative action is discrimination and racist</p>
<p>wealthy colleges serve wealthy families. Some diversity is welcomed and
accepted as a “good thing.” Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell whether someone
is low income or not but since blacks and to a certain degree Hispanics are
often thought of as low income, it’s easier to recruit a small number of black
faces for the brochure. So although income based AA might be a good thing,
it’s unlikely to happen.</p>
<p>AA should benefit low income student, irregardless of race. </p>
<p>My background? I am white, 1st generation college student, I have a plethora of unique extra curriculars (i.e. champion Borzoi breeder and so on), worked since I was 9, have taken 8 APs, scored a 2050 (800 in writing!), and had to overcome adversity my whole life. </p>
<p>According to statistics, <8% of students whose parents’ income resemble mine (my parents make < $17,000), ever take the SAT, much less score above a 1450/ 2400.</p>
<p>My stats? I was rejected from most of the top 20 colleges and wait listed at two.</p>
<p>I just wish that college admissions give low-income students (even the white ones) more credit.</p>
<p>if you’re a black male with a 1900 sat and a 3.5 you’re probably
going Ivy League, if you’re a white suburban low income female
with the same stats you’re probably going to your local community
college. Take away the few hundred black males that get lucky
and if you’re that low income white female, you’re probably still
going to the local cc. Yes, it’s unfair, but AA doesn’t make a whole
lot of difference statistically. And if the system was changed to
low income it probably still would make much difference. There are
simply way too many low income white students to feel the impact.</p>
<p>it should ALWAYS be income based…</p>
<p>and NEVER racially based</p>
<p>This isn’t the 1960s where the government needs to enforce racial equality. OUR PRESIDENT IS BLACK!! That should speak for itself!!</p>
<p>However, monetary differences cause problems…richer families can afford private schools, private tutors, and special programs that will increase the chances of their children to get into college.</p>
<p>Poorer kids will have to do work for themselves, without parental support. This is a BIG factor.</p>
<p>However, in the end…If a kid has amazing stats but is from a rich background, and another kids sucks but is from a poor background…The rich kid gets the slot. That’s the way it always is, and that’s the way it should be. SKILL will define who gets in. And that’s that.</p>
<p>colleges should pick the people they think are most likely to succeed there</p>
<p>just because someone is poor, it doesn’t give any reason to say they deserve it more than the rich kid. Just as the poor kid didn’t choose to be poor, the rich kid didn’t choose to be rich. And i’m sure a poor kid would love to be rich if he/she had the chance to be. That being said, admissions officers should definitely take into account the opportunities some have and don’t have, because that can give insight on motivation and perseverance. </p>
<p>On the other hand, regarding race…A good college should be EQUALLY available to anyone, white or black. Just because someone is black, it does not mean that they should have a significantly raised chance of getting into school than a white student does. I have met plenty of intelligent black people, and race should not contribute to a deciding factor of admission. At the end of the day, the more qualified applicant should be accepted, not the native american or the african american…it’s just as racist as taking a white person over a minority. I’m so tired of seeing ivy leagues trying to go to great lengths to prove to the world that its not just a rich community of white, privileged kids (which it still is and always will be)</p>
<p>"it should ALWAYS be income based…</p>
<p>and NEVER racially based"</p>
<p>I think you’re missing the point.</p>
<p>A poor Dominican probably knows how to cook a nice mangoo y huevo frito
A rich Dominican probably knows how to cook a nice mangoo y huevo frito</p>
<p>Rich or poor, in most cultures, races, ethnicity everything is similar. Again - regardless of income.</p>
<p>IT WILL BE CONSIDERED DISCRIMINATION NOW to choose a poor kid over a rich kid because it advocates the idea that the reason schools choose certain races is to “color the campus.” Which is a common misconception. Schools use AA to help spread culture. (is one but not all reasons)</p>
<p>However, I do believe that we should take into account one’s income, but as a WHOLE NEW different criteria. Like:</p>
<p>YES:
Legacy
URM
Social Class</p>
<p>NO:
Legacies
URM with Social Class</p>
<p>(BTW I’m really annoyed that a few people actually had the nerve to write that discrimination is over just because we have a black president. That’s disgusting to even say that.)</p>
<p>Again, like everyone said, AA is absolutely 100% flawed, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. But some people miss the original idea. It was never really about making up for slavery. (though it may have started that way or have been advocated, at first, in such a manner)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This alone supports AA based on socioeconomic status rather than race. African Americans have the lowest income than any other minority, except perhaps Native American, which explains the lowest SAT scores. THere is a clear trend between socioeconomic status and academic success, rather than race.</p>
<p>applicannot…this is what is wrong with our country. we call ourselves a melting pot, a mix of races, but when it comes to NATIONAL, STANDARDIZED testing (which means it is fair and equal opportunity for all), we have RACE CONVERSIONS?? that is absolutely absurd. Why is there a conversion chart between races. if a black person scores a 500, it it the SAME SCORE for a white kid who scores a 500. period. no questions asked. that being said, the college should put aside the concern for their national reputation for diversity and should just accept the more qualified applicant. They shouldn’t even ask for race on the applications anymore, it just distorts the entire application process to the point where if you’re white or rich you have no chance of getting into certain schools opposed to if you’re black with a 1800 you can get in wherever you’d like. Who’s more likely to succeed in life and utilize the college education? the black kid with a 600 or the white kid with a 700 (because apparently they convert to the same national percentile??). think about that.</p>
<p>I think colleges are starting to take into account income status more. Me and a friend of mine are both African-American, but he is far better off money-wise. he has higher SAT scores and will get an IB diploma while I will not. yet I got into Yale and Stanford( my top choices) and he got rejected by Harvard, UPenn, and Dartmouth. So I think that says something.</p>