<p>hdavid, why is it up to UCLA to solve problems 1,2, and 3? Why is it up to Asians who study hard and achieve high GPAs and SATs to step aside and let in less-qualified URMs? Your points would carry more weight if the only higher education opportunities in California were at Berkeley and UCLA. But California has an amazing array of college opportunities for people of all socio-economic-ethnic types. So does Michigan. NOBODY is denied an education when affirmative action is banned.</p>
<p>Make no mistake, I don't think UCLA should have to do anything. Nor would I want them to (except in the case of #1, where they should do it for all poor people, not just blacks.)</p>
<p>But the state of California should take a long hard look at itself and see why those numbers are so low. Cali needs to attack the root of the problem. Affirmative action at the university level is, in my opinion, ineffective, and they apparently agree.</p>
<p>I agree with hdavid's above post. Affirmative action was like snipping off the dandelion flower but leaving the roots in place. enacting Affirmative Action does not remedy the more serious problems occuring within the communities of these URMs. Education needs to be reformed from the bottom up, only then can people have equal opportunities.</p>
<p>The theory is that the benefitees of AA will return to where they came from and help build the community. I don't know if they've done any studies to show whether or not this happens, but I think the effect is definitely negligible. People who get a prestigious degree aren't going to want to go to the slums and work for lower pay in dangerous areas, regardless of whether or not it's where they came from, which is one of the main causes of all these problems. On the same principle, my aunt told me about a guy in dental school here, and the University said they'd pay his way through if he went to the UP (where I think he was originally from) to practice, since there's a lack of dentists up there. As soon as he got his degree, he left for Southern California to make more money.</p>
<p>hdavid,</p>
<p>Isn't there another possibility? Perhaps the method U-C is using to measure who has earned or deserved a place in the state's flagship U is not capturing all the qualities that accurately measure the college potential and aspirations of black males. </p>
<p>I'm just saying, if I had a selection process that ended up yielding me such an incredibly small slice of a certain population, I'd start probing its equity. Sure, some of the disparity is attributable to things that happen during K-12, and I'd agree with folks here who have said it's not really appropriate to remedy those via college admissions. But with numbers that low, I'd feel like there was also something else going on as well.</p>
<p>hoedown - I don't think the problem is in the admission criteria. If anything, typical indicators such as SAT scores overpredict black performance. The problem is simply a huge acheivement gap - one that even exists at the higher income levels, where higher income black students perform like low income whites. There are a number of factors at work - but the cultural factors, including the notion that studying is "acting white" and the phenomenal incidence of not only out of wedlock births but one parent homes have to be big contributors. This "is not blaming the victim" - but rather pointing out what the real issues are. The numbers are incredibly small, particularly, as you correctly state, among black males. The acheivement gap of course is the real issue - and the jury is out to some degree as to how much affirmative action has helped. It may be sensible to state that it has not helped because it will take generations upon generations to bring about change, but that is not a concept the people in general or the courts will buy. Michigan is a great university - they now need to find a way to compete well (they compete well in virtually every thing they do) for a very small pool of applicants.</p>
<p>You know what makes me sick? Has anyone looked at the "scholarship thread" from U of M? There's talk of a black kid from a private school with a 3.8 Mich GPA and 29 ACT who got a scholarship for full tuition. Goddarn it, it's not fair, it's not equitable. Enough is enough. I am SO glad Proposal 2 passed so that this kind of crap can't go on anymore.</p>
<p>Stewie, can I ask you more about your vitriol?</p>
<p>I'm setting aside the fact that we don't know anything about this person besides his race, scores, and someone else's reporting of his minimum U-M GPA (which, by the way, I have seen people wrongly calculate many times on this forum). </p>
<p>I don't understand your belief that his getting tuition scholarship is "crap." I know why scholarships may have to change under Prop 2. Beyond that, why is it so upsetting? Is it money that you think you would have been (or should have been) eligible for? </p>
<p>The thing is, the financial aid program has other scholarships funds that are not "fair or equitable" in the same manner. There may be a merit component, but they have other requirements that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with some other attribute, like the company your dad works for or the county you live in. Although those are likely not going to be targeted by a court case or referendum, do you feel the University should cease awarding them?</p>
<p>If one looks at data UC-wide, they'll notice that there are more African Americans accepted at UC schools 4 years after Prop 209 took effect (1998) than before. The acceptance rate pre-Prop 209 was low 70s and as of 2003 had climbed to high 60s. Likewise, more Mexican Americans and Latinos were accepted 2 and 3 years, respectively, after Prop 209 took effect. This shows that the number of minorities took a minor dive, but quickly rebounded after Prop 209 in terms of all the UC schools. Although I find it unfortunate that UC Berkeley and UCLA took most of the loss in racial diversity, I find it uncomfortable that the mentality is that if one does not go to these incredibly selective schools then they are a failure. A university education is a good thing no matter where it is (although I'm sure we'd have preferences for where we'd rather go) but you also don't want to put people in schools where they'd be at a disadvantage because they're less qualified than their peers (note: "qualified" as I understand it is being expected to graduate with a passing GPA -- the majority of applicants at any school would be qualified, but due to the lack of seats only a portion actually are accepted), which means that the likely problems of low self-esteem and poor graduate rates may begin to change.</p>
<p>FWIW, Matthew, I think when people describe the low numbers as a "tragedy" (or insert other emotional word here), they're not talking about the loss of opportunity for the "missing" black students. As you rightly point out, such students are generally getting an education elsewhere and not necessarily a "lesser" one. I think many people think it's a bad thing for the UCB and UCLA and for the students who are there in a less diverse environment. I can't speak for other people, but that's been the gist of my own reaction.</p>
<p>We've been discussing graduation rates on another thread. Once Prop 209 took effect, the gap between black and white graduation rates at UCB did not change. A gap remains at Texas as well (although I don't know what it was prior to the AA ban there). One must question the assumption that affirmative action causes dropout and transfer.</p>
<p>hoedown, I can't speak on behalf of Stewie, but I can tell you why I would see someone getting a bit upset about that situation if it were described completely accurately. Let me preface by saying that I am a white female (affected by Prop 2, but not affected by URM scholarships, etc). I personally think affirmative action was a good thing, but I think in some cases it is misused. If a student is being sent to a good private school it's likely their parents are paying for it. If their parents are paying for private school, it is reasonable to assume they have a middle class to upper middle class (or higher) income. I personally don't think that it would stand to reason that these are the people that really need the "pull up" that many scholarships could offer. If it is merit based then that should be considered regardless of color and this student might very well have been qualified. If however, it is meant to offer opportunities to those that might not otherwise have them (as you would assume URM full rides would be), then it seems it should have gone to someone that had fewer opportunities.</p>
<p>Again, this is assuming that this individual was in fact a student at a private school and their parents could afford to pay for their secondary education.</p>
<p>I don't personally disagree with the decision to offer anyone aid (full-ride or otherwise) with the amount of info we have here. There may be a perfectly good reason why this student was offered the scholarship and I personally will assume there is. But from the standpoint of one who truly would like to have those that need help receive it, the details of some awards definitely would make me inclined to look at certain decisions further.</p>
<p>Really hoedown, you don't understand stewie's vitriol? An in-state kid works hard, gets a 2300/35/3.9 (stewie's stats from other posts), applies early, gets his acceptance from Michigan and there is no scholarship with the admissions package. </p>
<p>Another kid, with lower stats, gets his admissions package with a full tuition scholarship.</p>
<p>Here is the scholarship.</p>
<p>"Scholar Recognition Award (SRA) Tuition for
4-5 years (depending on program of study) Varies </p>
<ul>
<li>Merit-based</li>
<li>Michigan resident</li>
<li>Recipient contributes to the overall excellence and diversity of the university community (with a particular focus on students from underrepresented minority groups or underrepresented geographic areas)"</li>
</ul>
<p>I, for one, can certainly understand why that would make stewie angry. </p>
<p>Remember that U of M didn't know anything about the financial status of the scholarship award winner. But they did know that they were from a private school. It is purely merit. And what merit? It's not an athletic scholarship, it's not a music scholarship, it's not based on academic achievement - certainly relative to other students admitted. It's based on their URM status and the fact that 11/7 had arrived. </p>
<p>To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best.</p>
<p>Also, just because this scholarship was targeted to URM's doesn't mean that the money would not have been available to stewie. I assume that UM has a certain amount budgeted for merit scholarships. I would hope that the money previously designated for URM scholarships might be reallocated to scholarships that stewie might be eligible for based on his achievement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's based on their URM status and the fact that 11/7 had arrived.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I want to correct an implication here--I believe these scholarships have been in existence for some time. Neither they--or their requirements--were created because of Prop 2. Not really your main point but it's a misconception that should be addressed before other readers believe otherwise. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to be obtuse, and I'm not being disingenous--I'm trying to probe this reaction for a reason. </p>
<p>My concern is that in the frenzy over one of American's most controversial debates, people forget some really basic truths about college admissions and college scholarships. Universities all over the country admit and recruit students they believe are desirable. Merit scholarships are a part of that. U-M is no exception. </p>
<p>Take need or lack of it out of the picture here--if you have need, you are eligible for aid; you won't be denied aid because of your race. Need-based aid is all about fairness. But we're talking about merit aid, and folks, that is all about unfairness. It's not just a reward for achievement--it's a yield tool. It's applied discriminately and unevenly, because its purpose is to help colleges get the students they want to enroll and retain. </p>
<p>I think we're all pretty accepting of the scholarships given for "obvious" merit, like superhuman SAT scores. They make sense to us--we're used to the idea that high-performing students are desirable. But U-M has scholarships tailored to all kinds of things, just as "unfair" and "inequitable" as ethnicity. There are scholarships based in part on gender, county, affiliation with a tribe, being the kid of a plumber, for having a blood relative who fought in WWII, or for having worked as a golf caddy. </p>
<p>Getting back to Stewie's example, would posters here be as upset if that particular scholarship went to a kid from Gogebic county? If not, why is it especially upsetting when it's given for ethnicity? </p>
<p>If we're willing to accept all kinds of "unfairness" except when it applies to race, let's be honest about the fact that it's not really unfairness, per se, at issue. I think that unfairness based on race bothers people a lot more than unfairness based on other things. </p>
<p>I'm not immune to this kind of inconsistency either. Far from it. I think it's interesting, and relevant to the way we approach race issues, and worth probing given the emotions that Prop 2 arouses. If I've come off accusatory (instead of thought-provoking) then I apologize for lack of skill in getting my thoughts across.</p>
<p>And FWIW, stewie's stats indicate he's the kind of student U-M and loads of other places want, and I hope he does get some merit money before all is said and done.</p>
<p>I think your post is very well thought out and reasoned.</p>
<p>However, I do think that there is no doubt that you are implying that stewie feelings are raced based, which does nothing but inflame the argument.</p>
<p>I, for one, would be just as upset is the scholarship went to the kid from Gogebic County with the same stats. I would presume, given stewie's apparent intellect, that he would be too.</p>
<p>ps I do know that the scholarship has been in exisitence for quite some time and did not mean to imply otherwise.</p>
<p>I may have been wrong to assume that the scholarship's geographic qualification was less upsetting to stewie or others than the ethnicity qualification. If so, I apologize.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to do "nothing but inflame" the thread. If that's not coming across, I'll drop this whole line of discussion.</p>
<p>I'm guessing one reason for Stewie's anger is that he grew up at a time when he was hit with the anti-racism message from kindergarten through high school. It's pounded into school kids on a daily basis that it's just plain wrong to make any judgement based on race. Then it's time to go to college and all of a sudden the two most important things--admission and scholarships--are based on....race!</p>