<p>And what did AA have to do with you, per se? I am sure there were white applicants with lower stats that also got in...imagine that</p>
<p>It was bad timing (personal story I won't get into). I think I'm too inquisitive sometimes. I assumed that you were personally trying to attack me, but I was wrong. If it wasn't AA, why wouldn't they give me a specific reason as to why I didn't get in (low ACT scores for example), rather than the generic excuse they give everyone?</p>
<p>And I've never been on a date. Now I'm definitely going to leave this thread lol.</p>
<p>well, when you start dating and looking for relationships, you will find that often there is no "closure", no reason, no nothing statisfying about why it didn't work out....</p>
<p>Because generic is what they do to protect themselves...if they had said, your ACTs weren't high enough, and you showed that they let in people with lower ACTS, what would that accomplish?</p>
<p>It probably WASN"T AA, just the way it worked out...</p>
<p>Here is a story...my H applied to be a fireman, there were say 100 slots, and the city wanted a certain percentage from each race to mirror the city population</p>
<p>needless to say, there were many many more applicants that were white, so his chances were statistacally slimmer that say, an Asian applicant, that did not mean the Asian applicants were less qualified, not by a long shot, but they did have a better chance as there were fewer of them....it was fair, it was right and we have a great fire department</p>
<p>Okay...</p>
<p>First of all, I'm on here on my own time trying to dispell a lot of myths that many students on here perpetuate about the admissions process. I'm not representing an institution or a college on here - I'm just throwing out there what my professional experience has been...if you choose to ignore it or think I'm making it up, that's your perrogative...But, for the record, I'm not making it up. </p>
<p>ALSO, I have several years of experience doing educational research myself on higher education, educational attainment of minorites, admissions and affirmative action processes and policies, and public policy. I've worked with some of the most respected and educated researchers of education in the country at Harvard University; I've read tens of thousands of pages of research on this stuff; I've done several studies on my own. He's the 411 folks...yes, admit rates for black students, Latino and Hispanic Students, Native American students, and certain groups of Asian American students are higher than those of white students and certain groups of Asian American students. Does that mean that the process or the people making these decisions are racist? No. Does it mean that it's <em>easier</em> to get into Harvard because you are black or Hispanic or whatever as opposed to being white? Not usually. </p>
<p>For those students out there who think they are getting screwed over in the admissions process...PLEASE STOP posting your anger on here. Certain groups of students are hugely over-represented in our nation's top colleges and universities while black and Latino students continue to be grossly under-represented. However, most white and Asian American students have access to better education at the secondary level than black and Latino students; white and Asian American students also tend to bet better counseling and attention in high school than do their Latino and black peers. This does not mean that being Asian American or white is easier, less difficult, whatever...but playing the "who's got it worse" game is ridiculous. Think about what the realities of race relations in this country are before spouting off about affirmative action. Whatever the color of your skin is, if all you care about is "stats" then go to a school that only cares about that. The Princeton study cited earlier equates the effects of affirmative action with test scores...sadly, this is not a good metric of what a student is capable of adding to a college. Thus, if you care about and value learning about the experiences and perspectives of different peoples and how those perspectives can flavor your own knowledge, than apply to colleges that "so obviously" use affirmative action.</p>
<p>"Certain groups of students are hugely over-represented in our nation's top colleges and universities while black and Latino students continue to be grossly under-represented."</p>
<p>So? Shouldn't decisions be based on who's qualified and who's not? why does race have to play a factor. If race becomes a factor in making decisions, that's racist. All men are created equal, supposedly. Racial AA completely goes against it.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I applaud California, Texas and Michigan for banning AA, becoz they realized that its RACIST</p>
<p>Actually, I have to Agree with Bbecker on some points. I've had people assume that I'm not "passionate" about things just because I am Asian. Throughout the year, my friend had propagated the image that she was the most historically "tuned" of us all... she always made it clear that she is a history fanatic.... and I let her have her spotlight because she was a really good friend... but I love history, but do you know she said when she found out I got a "5" on my AP test over her 4??? She told people that I wasn't really interested in the topic, I just got a 5 because Asians are all test crazy. What the heck is that suppose to mean??? And it hurt coming from a close friend.
Personally, I find the assumption that Asian = crazy prep by parents rather annoy. Honestly, I really hope that the colleges I applied to consider my stats on a more practical basis. True I am Asian, but I am also def. not well off, I am a immigrant, my parents work 10 hours a day and don't even know what grade I am in. How is this suppose to make me a worse applicant than a rich white or hispanic guy???? Explain that.
I would really prefer to be judged by what I have done in the circumstance I have been given.</p>
<p>the fact is race plays a role in college admission. Everyone agrees?</p>
<p>So, for the OP. If you agree that race plays a role, then it is reasonable to put down race for people here to chance you (becauseit's important in the admission process). If you don't like what people say, don't post it. It's simple.</p>
<p>"the fact is race plays a role in college admission. Everyone agrees?"
to further the argument, the fact that skin color plays a role in determining whether opportunity (to attend a school) is given or denied is racist and active discrimination..what's the difference of that and not allowing a person to enter a restaurant becoz of his skin color. Nothing. Yes, the restaurant example is extreme, but in principle they are the same. Too bad we cant have sit-ins for college admissions</p>
<p>Do not dare equate race as a positive element among a qualified group in college admissions and race as an automatic excluder, pervasively, in everyday access to all aspects of society the minute a "colored person" stepped outside his private domicile. ("Free" on the inside, a prisoner on the outside.)</p>
<p>I just knew someone would once again show a vast ignorance of U.S. history & trivialize the Civil Rights struggles that just yesterday were memorialized. For a "colored person," life before the historic sit-ins was apartheid, and nothing less. How truly narcissistic of you to equate the concerns for full representation of all races in a college class, with your supposed "civil right" to have your relatively privileged life ignored. And given that both minority & majority races & ethnicities are admitted in a balance, and that several such groups are also rejected in plentiful representation, also puts this issue galaxies outside of the category of "civil rights." Get over yourself. </p>
<p>Automatic exclusion based strictly & solely on race, and arbitrarily applied to that entire group (not individually based on less impressive achievement versus competitors), that would be a racist denial of opportunity. No one's being denied an opportunity to compete, based on their entire list of assets, and lots of qualified people of varying nationalities & backgrounds & races are getting rejected every year due to the over-demand and under-supply of seats at a handful of Elites.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^
This is an extremely well thought out and well articulated point here folks...</p>
<p>I'd also like to point out one other thing though...while everyone has the same opportunity to compete for admission to selective colleges by applying, many students of color do not have the same opportunities to achieve in the country the same way most of their white and Asian American peers do. I cannot tell you the number of times I have walked into predominantly white schools and have been disgusted by the ways in which I see white and Asian American students being treating better than their black and Latino peers. THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM kiddies. And this is why we have affirmative action. </p>
<p>You cannot presume that affirmative action is racist or discriminatory when we do not live in a society where everyone has the same opportunities to achieve and learn! We do not live in a meritocracy - never have and never will. </p>
<p>Inaina - your application IS going to be evaluated based on your personal circumstances at highly selective colleges - that's why applications ask what your parents do for a living, what you do outside of school, if there are any extenuating circumstances that have affected your high school achievement, and why we ask your high school to send us a profile of your high school - all so we can get a holistic view of what opportunities were available to you and what you did with those opportunities. that's what these decisions are based on - not stereotypes.</p>
<p>If race is a factor, it's racist, it's as simple as that. The fact that different race are treated not completely equally, that's racism. It's simple. No matter how you try to defend it.</p>
<p>No, that's pure ignorance to think that students' academic achievement is not affected by the ways they are treated in school their whole lives because of the color of their skin. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.</p>
<p>"that's pure ignorance to think that students' academic achievement is not affected by the ways they are treated in school their whole lives because of the color of their skin."</p>
<p>um..if you think that blacks and hispanics get worse education than asians and whites, that's stereotyping. There are a lot of black and hispanic students at the most prestigious BS like andover, exeter, SPS Hotchkiss and the likes, and they get better education than 99.9% of the students in the nation. If you think this general trend is due to skin color instead of economic background, that's pure ignorance on your part. Therefore, instead of asking people of their skin color on the application, why dont you guys ask about income bracket, i think that's more relevant if you want to balance the effect of "students' academic achievement affected by the ways they are treated in school their whole lives because of the color of their skin"</p>
<p>came by this thread, saw a lot of people posting ignorant posts with no logic at all.
I don't want to stand on a side whether pro or con AA, but I do with to point out several of the MANY illogical inputs.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Adcom said some groups are overrepresented and some are underrepresented. I agree, but
(a) why is overrepresentation bad? Why can't everything be based on merit?
(b) why is the group distinguished by ethnicity? isn't that promoting racism? why can't it be distinguished by the height of the applicant, the weight of the applicant (i used these to examples to show how ridiculous it is)? </p></li>
<li><p>Adcom claimed that certain ethnicity groups have less opportunities. Bearcats pointed out there are exceptions. In that case, why don't you just look at social-economic backgrounds and take away the fill-in-the-race box?
This is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL statement and a very poor defense for AA, considering how smart and intellegent all admissions officers must be in highly selective colleges. (hypothetically)</p></li>
<li><p>Get over w/ it. We all know college is just a business, all they want is to make money and build a brand. There was an linked article on CC in another thread about it (I forgot where it was), and I got confirmed by a professor when I visited an ivy league college. It's all about advertising and building an image. It's not about educating the future youth or whatever, or at least, that's not their primary purpose. They may want to educate youth or whatever, but the ultimate goal is BUSINESS.</p></li>
<li><p>"Considering private institutions are private, they can admit whoever they care" some ignorant people on other threads say. However, this is extremely illogical too. If they DARE to admit that, then so be it. If they claim to be as holistic and fair as they do, they should practice what they preach. </p></li>
<li><p>Continuing #3, since college is a business, people are involved in it. It would be a much better choice to believe a 3rd party's information, such as Princeton Sociology's (I dont remember if it is this department) report than someone DIRECTLY involved in it; having to defend it because it directly relates to the person. So, sadly, research done by a third party is a "tiny bit" more than an admissions officer's words just because of the nature of their positions, not because the admissions officer is a liar. It's like if the police killed a gang member, we tend to think he's a hero; if another gang member killed the same gang member, we tend to think they got into an argument. It's just the nature of their positions and status.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Just my 2 cents...you may all argue what you want, but please show some logic and reason since I've came across a lot of threads where people claim how "highly intellegence" and "overachieving" CCers are. Considering how "smart" and "miraculous" every member here is, one would expect some more reasonable arguments and a better debate than a bunch of assertions with no proof or logic to back it up.</p>
<p>Lastly, we seem to be going very far off the OP's post.
so for the OP, if you want a very educated and realistic guess, the best other CCers can do is to take in this "holistic" evaluation as many colleges claim to be, including ALL your information, which of course includes SAT, GPA, club officer, social-econ background, and race.
If you want to take a part out, it's the same as asking your changes when you don't give a full picture, just like not mentioning your GPA, SAT scores, or some outstanding ECs.
But if you prefer to be evaluated that way, i don't see a problem just that it may not be as accurate as many CCers could have predicted.</p>
<p>oh, to be fair, I should probably stand on the other side as well.
While I don't know what people think about AA, I'm sure no one got in the school purely because he/she's a urm.
Just like it's ignorant to think urm doesn't help, it's ignorant to think someone got in BECAUSE of being urm.
being urm is just like SAT score, GPA, personal essay, teacher's rec...etc it's a part of the application, just like the rest. Just like no single factor may get someone in (well, that's not true, a person in our school got in an ivy league school b/c his/her grandparent was the first urm to graduate from that school) but yeah, just like a single SAT score or a single teacher's rec won't get you in; a single race factor won't either.
The most it can do is help; whether it helps a little or a lot depends on how racist the AA executors are.</p>
<p>kenny...
everything cannot be based on merit alone because we do not live in a meritocracy...not every student has the same chance of succeeding in this country or achieving as every other student. saying that the playing field is level is simply a dream. if everyone attended the same school, with the same quality instruction, came from the same income bracket, had the same support at home, had the same amount of time to be able to commit to their educations, and were all treated to same by teachers and counselors then we could base our decisions on "merit" alone. but we don't live in that world. </p>
<p>in terms of looking at things through income instead of race - believe me, we look closely at that as well. we see what a student's parents do for a living, where they live, what school they go to, and the level of educational attainment by their parents - all indicators of whether or not a student has been privileged in some way. but just because you are poor or wealthy does not necessarily mean you have taken advantage of the opportunities - whether copious or not - you've had. that's the most important thing...</p>
<p>re: the Princeton study - there are flaws in that study - flaws that people on this thread and others fail to point out - i'm not going to go into it, but it's important to be informed about educational research and how it's done, why it's done, and who is doing it or funding it - being a savvy consumer of educational research is important if you are going to believe what researchers are <em>claiming</em> - i have posted about this AD NAUSEM re: people taking researchers' findings out of context, not telling the whole story behind studies, the limits of studies done. as someone who conducts educational research, has an advanced degree in education and public policy, and reads new educational research on a weekly basis, it is really hard for me to sit here and watch people take this stuff out of context, especially when the research uses the SAT as a metric for anything. </p>
<p>re: education is a business...yes, admittedly there is a bottom line - there are budgets in higher ed and many schools are trying to maximize their net tuition revenues to stay open. but your assertion that colleges and universities - which are non-profit entities - are merely around to make a buck is ludicrous. </p>
<p>bearcats - look at reality PLEASE. private high schools and boarding schools are overwhelmingly white and have been for decades. we are not just talking about today - we are talking about a legacy of discrimination, exclusion, and inequality in education. there are hispanic, black, native american, etc..., kids in boarding schools, but the vast majority i have spoken with and interviewed have maintained that their experiences are ridden with prejudice and social isolation - do not act like there are a multitude of URM students at these schools - there aren't - and do not presume that these students have an easy time there, even if they are wealthy, because they do not. perhaps some do, but most do not. </p>
<p>again, as i've said AD NAUSEUM in other posts - race is considered if and when it needs to be. even when it is considered, it is but one consideration, the same way a huge sat score might be considered. can a huge sat score help you? sure...but it does not guarantee you can do the work at a particular college or add anything to its community. considering race is very similar.</p>
<p>"we are talking about a legacy of discrimination, exclusion, and inequality in education."</p>
<p>Are you telling me that asian americans are not discriminated against? Does asians get the consideration that.."OMG, he must have done poorly in school becoz he is being discriminated against and he has to deal with all the pressure..HELLO!!"</p>
<p>and why do you think california, texas and now michigan ban AA? You realy think they are thinking, "holy cow, our state flagship is so diversed and there's visible diversity that make us look good; we dont want that. We want to kill diversity..." NO! Becoz they realized it's unfair and it's discrimination in practice</p>
<p>and food for thoughts, why do you think the asian population at UC Berkeley almost tripled when they banned AA? Coincidence? I think not. and you are telling me that race is such a SMALL factor it ONLY changed about 30% of the acceptance pool when AA was banned.. COOL</p>
<p>
[quote]
and food for thoughts, why do you think the asian population at UC Berkeley almost tripled when they banned AA? Coincidence? I think not. and you are telling me that race is such a SMALL factor it ONLY changed about 30% of the acceptance pool when AA was banned.. COOL
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't be quite so cynical toward affirmative action if its proponents were honest in their goals.</p>
<p>I always read stuff like</p>
<p>"Diversity is good, so we need more!"
"We're excluding people!"
"Playing field isn't level!"
"Historically under-represented minorities are being hurt!"</p>
<p>(The last one is the funniest. The term 'minority' isn't enough because Asians are minorities and do quite well. Even 'under-represented' occasionally doesn't cut it, as Asians fit that definition at liberal arts colleges. Thus, the advent of the new politically correct term - historically under-represented. The redemptive liberals just keep rewriting their words.)</p>
<p>If supporters of racial preferences would just admit that they want more Blacks and fewer Asians at universities, then I'd applaud them for their honesty.</p>