<p>I agree with most of bdawa’s points. However, I don’t see how it’s racist to think that someone was denied opportunities because of race. I know people whose success was impeded because of their race. Yet, I’m not racist.</p>
<p>Being Asian myself, I do not support AA. However, I believe that AA is important for the society as a whole. Recent studies show that different races are evolving away from each other, in order to avoid an intellectual divide (which would most likely lead to social tension), we need AA so everyone will have access to elite higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to see these studies.</p>
<p>I could not find the journal, but heres the article summarizing the study [Are</a> humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike](<a href=“http://www.physorg.com/news116529402.html]Are”>Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike)</p>
<p>What is wrong with a complete meritocracy? Frankly, if I had my way , I would completely eliminate affirmative action completely. Based on the state referendoms, most folks agree with me too. It’s only colleges and governmental institutions that keep pushing this over the disgust of most parents. </p>
<p>I saw this at Syracuse University for their summer program. I sent my daughter there for a precollege art program,which was $5,000. There was a list circulated accidentally that showed who attended the program and what they paid. Literally 25% of the students were there for free! I actually met an African American girl who was there for free whose parents were both physicians! Give me a break! I can’t even believe that this subject has to even be debated.</p>
<p>However, if you are going to have it, I vote for social/economic reasons. I never understood why some minority, no matter how rich, should get preferential treatment for college admission because someone’s grandparent ( and maybe not even the person receiving the preferential treatment) might have been discriminated. There doens’t even have to be a showing of any actual discrimation either with under represented minorities. However, allowing AA for economic reasons would at least have a proven causation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say it’s a bigger problem, more that it’s the same problem.</p>
<p>Asian families are not stupid, and have tried to adapt to the discrimination by trying to also emphasize athletics (where possible – disparate impact again). The results are the same as in all other groups: an overall dumber, less capable student body. The Asian basketball player might have higher SAT scores than the black basketball player, but his academic capabilities are not on the same level as those of students admissible without any preferences.</p>
<p>To answer your initial question taxguy, see the post above yours.</p>
<p>siserune, what evidence do you have that playing basketball makes you dumber? Or is your point that sports involvement decreases opportunities for furthering one’s intellect? Perhaps some people would argue that a student who can maintain high scores and grades while still dedicating significant time to e.c.'s of any kind (sports or other) is in fact more capable, brighter, quicker than those with same or marginally higher stats with far less multitasking.</p>
<p>You seem to have a stereotype about athletes. [Disclosure: not an athletic family, let alone recruited]. But from my reading and intimate acquaintances, brains and athletics are not mutually exclusive. Ever heard of the ‘scholar-athlete’ paradigm?</p>
<p>Next we’ll be hearing about another outdated stereotype: the “dumb blond.”</p>
<p>taxguy
Say there are a segment in society no matter how hard they have tried, they never can be achieving as people expect them to
Then society as a whole, would do a good job in providing the equal environment for every segment a chance to advance
AA practice is good in this sense.
Society should promote and nurture equal opporturnity. That is why I support AA
Don’t blame people honor AA. Blame them for discriminating against other segment of society: the young kids who try hard and achieve high but denied a chance. Why ?</p>
<p>I will try to be as concise as possible, by sparing you all with the many sorted details of my life. I grew up in a really poor neighborhood with my grandparents, living in 5th ward (Houston,TX) and on a $10,000 year salary was not easy. I went to the worst schools, but was still motivated by my grandfather to continue on to college. When I arrived at the University(open admissions) I had to take remedial classes ( I had to withdraw and retake math several time) and had little eloquence in writing formal English. I am ashamed to have the slew of w’s that I do have on my transcript, but that is spilled milk. I had very little guidance, was underdeveloped in many areas, and as a result I made many mistakes gpa wise for years, before ever actually developing a circle of individuals who were upwardly mobile and encouraging. Even though I didn’t know exactly what I was doing at the time, I still stayed in school because I believed in education, strange huh? However, by my senior year I had been in school for 7 years (without stopping) and only had a 2.75 when I became interested in dentistry. Now that I am focused and have learned many valuable lessons, I plan on attending another university for my pre-dent prereq’s so that I can start anew with my gpa. I plan on becoming a dental rockstar (in hopes of making up for the past). I plan to take every basic math and science course that will help me to prepare for the rigors of dentistry. I am a minority and am grateful for all the opportunities that come my way because I will make the best of them. I still have to develop my math and scientific ability to become successful and competitive because I wasn’t taught so in secondary school. Needless to say, I will work very hard, take prep classes, and get private tutoring if need be. We(minorities) should definitely work harder to get into marketable careers and take advantage of all our opportunities for our future.</p>
<p>I think every single one of us can reel off examples of rich underrepresented minorities (ie African American and Latino), who are given preferential treatment. In the media, it’s the elephant in the living room–they all know this but are afraid to say anything lest they be accused of racism. Also, rich powerful white people aren’t impacted by AA. They are legacies, or give donations. I personally know of three families living on Park Ave in Manhattan whose children go to Ivies entirely because 1) they gave a ‘donation’ to the school or 2) their parents teach at the school (Columbia) and this is part of the ‘deal’ and of course 3) they are legacies. Trust me, none of these children are of the caliber that they should have been accepted; they are more like Rutgers or SUNY caliber (no insult, but not Ivy.) Who is most negatively impacted by AA? 1) Low and middle income people. 2) so-called ‘over-represented’ minorities, such as Asians. The reason our universities and media don’t make a huge deal about this inequity is because they themselves are not negatively impacted – their own children get in regardless. They’re connected and rich. So it’s easy for them to spout platitudes about AA and ‘diversity’ when their own children will go to a top college regardless. That said, I do feel that racism should be taken into account. However, I’d like to see attention paid to the secondary school inequities of poor inner city schools. So many poor people of color cannot hope to get into any college because they are completely abandoned by their school system and by their own communities. They just don’t have the skills. When colleges ignore this truth and pretend they are fixing inequity by admitting rich connected minorities, and patting themselves on the back for it, it only exacerbates this very complex problem.</p>
<p>My point is that assuming that someone is socio economically disadvantaged just because they are of a race is a racist view. All Asians must be smart, an African American must be underprivilaged etc. They are all just stereotypes and thinking in stereotypes is racist</p>
<p>silverturtle notes that AA should occurs because of some studies ( which I haven’t evaluated) supposedly show people are evolving differently. Ok, even if true, what is the point?</p>
<p>In most studies that I have seen, AA wouldn’t have corrected this problem. In fact, in schools that have highest emphases on AA or diversity, it has been shown that races, ethnic groups, and even groups of differing economic and social strata stay stratified and don’t mix well. Certainly having AA doesn’t automatically generate a mixing of gene pools.</p>
<p>compaq10 notes,“Say there are a segment in society no matter how hard they have tried, they never can be achieving as people expect them to
Then society as a whole, would do a good job in providing the equal environment for every segment a chance to advance”</p>
<p>Response: I have problems with this. First, I don’t believe that folks who try hard can’t achieve great heights in this country. Look at Obama! I do believe that anyone can achieve what they can perceive if they try hard enough. The problem is that I believe that most people aren’t willing to try hard enough! Many seem to have an “I deserve it” mentality. I have seen this a LOT with job applicants.</p>
<p>Secondly, how do you know which segment reallty didn’t try? You would take their word?</p>
<p>Third, I have said this before and will say it again, I don’t see any god given right for anyone to attend a private school. State schools are different because of their funding and mission,but I don’t see why folks have an unconditional right to any private school.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that society should promote and nurture equal opportunity. However, this does NOT mean that it should be accomplished through AA. I prefer legislation against any form of discrimination or reverse discrimination. Opportunity should be equal to all based on merit! Yes, I would also do away with legacy admission etc.,although I know that I am dreaming about this ever occuring.</p>
<p>Fifth, admitting folks who are much less qualified under the guise of “equal opportunity” is doing a disservice to everyone. Studies have shown that these same folks generally have a much lower retention rate than those not receiving some benefit due to AA. As one professor noted privately to me, colleges have done a very poor job in trying to ameliorate poor academic backgrounds. These same colleges that are big proponents of AA are in denial about this. As Hoveringmom noted,"admitting rich connected minorities, and patting themselves on the back for it, it only exacerbates this very complex problem. "</p>
<p>Moreover, to assume someone is poor because they are black or smart because they are Asian is idiotic. This is an example of some of the worst racial stereotyping around yet it is the main thrust behind affirmative action ( AA). </p>
<p>Thus, what is the answer to helping out poor and underprivileged folks?</p>
<p>This problem ( of poor academic preparation for college)has to be undertaken in the primary schools with better teacher training, more money for remediation, especially at the lower levels of education, and more training, such as vocational opportunities, for those not academically qualified for college. Sadly, we are laying teachers off when we need them the most and scaling back on our educational budgets. However, we surely have plenty of money to give a paultry $400 rebate or more money for earned income credits for low income folks like the Octamom to have more kids. How stupid is this?</p>
<p>Moreover,why should everyone go to college regardless of their lack of qualifications? Many trades are dying for good people and pay very well. We need to encourage more of this in society, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Sorry for this long rant. I guess this whole subject really hit a nerve with me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Comparing populations rather than individuals, those admitted due to one or more preferences are expected (and have been documented, in the case of athletes, minorities and legacies) to have overall lower academic credentials and lower performance after enrollment. The higher the number of preference categories applying to a given population, and the stronger the admissions effect of the preferences, the lower the academic caliber of that population. </p>
<p>This is not a theoretical speculation. Anyone with much teaching experience at selective schools with multiple disparate admissions standards would have ample observational evidence. Let’s just say that I’ve had the recruited basketball, football, etc players at my office hours and have some idea of the ability levels relative to students as a whole. </p>
<p>For football, basketball and hockey in particular, I refer you again to the long analysis in Harvard Crimson about how SAT requirements are of special concern for those sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The poster AdOfficer has previously noted that at her college admitted athletes have a history of maintaining high academic performance after admission. I don’t think your generalizations are all that helpful. They may be cautionary; however, colleges do admit individuals rather than populations.</p>
<p>Taxguy - in Outliers Malcolm Gladwell points out that during the school year, there is very little socio economic disadvantage in learning. The point spreads occur during the time the children are away from school. Kipp Academy in south bronx highlights this. By having a longer day and shorter summer breaks, Kipp’s students go on to compete on equal educational footings and are particularly strong in Math.</p>
<p>[Knowledge</a> Is Power Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIPP]Knowledge”>KIPP - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I for one believe that socio economic situation should not be allowed to determine who gets to learn and who doesn’t. Maybe the issue should be how we view qualification.
In that regard, we reap what we sew. SAT matters? We produce a system that preps for the exams and skews whole ciriculums towards the very tools that are supposed to measure them. Education is as a means to an end “my goal is to get into an IVY.”
Don’t you find it a bit strange for entrance to be a goal rather than a biproduct?</p>
<p>In my opinion we as a society need to really asses what we are producing and why.</p>
<p>bdawa notes,"Don’t you find it a bit strange for entrance to be a goal rather than a biproduct?</p>
<p>In my opinion we as a society need to really asses what we are producing and why. "</p>
<p>Response: I am not sure it is that strange. I have always been told to be "goal"oriented. I suspect that I am not the only one told this either. If success is based on having goals,which I am told it is, then having a goals that you noted aren’t strange. Whether it is the proper goal is another question.</p>
<p>You want effective Affirmative Action? Its when an employer hires the hard working, strong common sense kid from ABC State instead of the privileged private college erudite. </p>
<p>I have had far better experience with kids who borrowed or worked their way through state universities, then I have with blue bloods. Kids who have been told how extraordinary they are their entire lives often don’t take well to constructive criticism (or direction).</p>
<p>@bdawa</p>
<p>That is a great book and a good example for a lot of topics in this debate. I totally agree.</p>
<p>clyde10,I totally agree with you, but in the upper tiers of American society, blue blood and connections matter a HUGE amount. Ability matters much less. We’ve seen the result in the Wall St. debacle. (There’s still a lot of denial there; they are still deluding themselves they are the best and the brightest. Sigh.) This is why I have such mixed feelings about the AA debate. Rich people (I mean rich, as in at least several millions a year) have the ultimate Affirmative Action–all they do is pay to play. We all know this and accept it. Legacies, bribes, ‘donations,’ whatever it takes. Look at our current Secretary of Education. He has zero experience as a teacher or school administrator, and zero experience even personally with public schools: he never went to one (went to the very expensive private Lab School in Chicago) and doesn’t send his kids to one. Yet he is making decisions that will impact our entire nation’s public schools–millions of lives. Why? Well, guess where he went to school? Harvard. Guess who he’s connected with? Pres. Obama. Yes, it’s true that he was the ‘CEO’ (whatever that means) of hte Chicago system—he was given that position in 2001, also out of no real experience. Truly, when you get high up, it matters a whole lot who you know and who you’re connected with. It can be quite depressing when you think about it. Hence the upper class obsession with Ivies and our own sort of ‘trickle down’ obsession. How many rich kids (I mean rich, not upper middle class) do you know who go to an excellent state school or a public secondary school for that matter? The children of Bill Gates or President Obama sure as heck aren’t going to public. But I fear I’ve drifted into another topic. I too feel strongly about this and I’m sorry I’m going on and on. It just brings up all sorts of inequities. And I’ve taught college in Camden and - on the other side of the spectrum - have seen so many bright young lives wasted, or drifting for lack of direction or knowledge of what’s out there. I had a girl tell me angrily (when she found out she needed remedial work in college), “Why wasn’t I taught this? In my school, all you had to do was turn up and be good, and you got an A.” I’ve also seen a great deal of courage and strength, far more than the various connected people I know in Park Ave. It’s all such a complex problem; AA is a band-aid solution.</p>