<p>This is what happens when universities don't have Affirmative Action:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=197822%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=197822</a></p>
<p>What do you guys think?</p>
<p>If we want to be colorblind, we should treat admissions colorblind.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should read the thread and note the observations of the more observant posters.</p>
<p>this is the way things should be. I think even with that figure, they probably do Affirmative Action at some level. I don't know why there is always the incentive to get a certain number of black people, and hispanic people as if they are different. I wish i was black.
Immigrants face much more obstacles in school, yet a good portion of them make it into very prestigious colleges, despite not getting AA treatment.</p>
<p>I do think that it is very important for you guys to have this issue on your minds. Because of MCRI, campus is going to be VERY engaged on this issue.</p>
<p>Without disclosing what my personal opinions are regarding affirmative action or racial preferences in admission, allow me to bring to the table the university's argument, just so you know why they use Aa. The official stance of UM is that diversity is a crucial element of a good educational enviroment, and that it is so important that it justifies discrimination (positive and negative) in the admissions process. They argue that because so many of the U's students come from defacto segregated environments, there needs to be a certain presence of minority students to allow all U students to learn how to function in a diverse and multi-cultural world.</p>
<p>While there are other arguments, like that "minority students don't have the same opportunities etc." one and so on, the "diversity" arguement is the University's main one.</p>
<p>yeah without AA, UCLA has under 100 african american student enrolled when the first year class has over 5000 students.....pretty scarry</p>
<p>The MCRI is going to pass without a doubt in my mind.</p>
<p>The same "values voters" that went against gay marriage last year are going to come out in force for the MCRI as well.</p>
<p>I think that the University's policy is the only valid argument that I have ever heard in favor of AA</p>
<p>I agree with the university's argument in favor of AA, but it is also true that many poor minority students who are forced to go to the worst public schools in the nation and have less opportunities and resources deserve to be evaluated differently in the admissions process. AA is important so that talented students from the lowest socioeconomic conditions, not necessarily because of their race, have the same opportunity as students that come from middle-class to upper-class backgrounds.</p>
<p>Right, but how many underprivileged kids actually end up making anything of their opportunity? I could make broad, unbased generalizations, but I realized that'd be kinda stupid, so I'll keep my mouth shut about crap I don't know. But I have a feeling that academic drive and ability is something that needs to be established well before college. So whether or not they would've been qualified with competent schooling, they weren't, and should go somewhere that better fits their prior experience. Sure, it seems cruel, but that's just the way things work in our capitalistic society. The best man should get the job, and taking an underqualified minority is just as racist as passing up a qualified one, at least in the sense of achieving the goal of social equality. The prior one isn't looked down upon as much because they're "trying to be nice", but in any case you're singling out some race and giving them preferential treatment.</p>
<p>I personally think as an academic institution, you should take people based on academic merits, and not import minorities like they're some foreign animal so the white kids won't freak out when they see them out in the wild. AA does nothing to solve the real problems that are keeping these minorities from being as academically qualified as everybody else. It's just trying to treat the symptoms instead of the cause. </p>
<p>I also don't think constantly making race the issue and dividing things up by race does much good, either, because it's highlighting the differences that we're trying to eliminate. The real issue is socioeconomic status, it just so happens that because of our country's history there's an association between race and socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>\has a feeling he won't be liked as much after this post...</p>
<p>Supply and demand. The demand for African American students at quality universities exceeds the supply. The schools that are practicing some form of AA or giving special scholarships are getting the lion's share of these students. Also, there are still some schools that have all African American students that take up some of the supply of quality students. Personally, I'm glad Michigan is diverse, but UCSD is only following California law. While I am not opining on California law, don't forget that before this Aisian students had a very difficult time getting into UC schools. Many were uber qualified and had to leave the state or go to lesser quality schools. When you are discriminating in favor of one group, you are necessarily discriminating against another if the number of the supply of spots does not change.</p>
<p>Agree with dilksy for the most part, but for the sake of lack of time, can't write more detailed arguments till I get back to the US Monday night. So keep this thread alive, please?</p>
<p>Okay, never mind. I will make time for this thread.</p>
<p>I cant believe political correctness has come to this. Why are we specifying a numbers of seats for a certain group based on their skin color? Can you not look past this? I think admissions should take the success of a student in his living environment into consideration and I dont think the entire admissions process should be based on numbers. However, admissions should also have the students best interest in mind. If an under-qualified individual goes to Berkeley based on his minority status, what do you think will happen to this students confidence, record, etc.? Hed be better off going to a less prestigious school, doing well there, and stepping up the ladder instead of jumping and missing.</p>
<p>One should be evaluated in the context of one's environment; racial makeup is just a part that is associated with one's environment and socioeconomic condition. AA is meant to find the most talented individuals of each race and socioeconomic situation to fill quotas. I agree completely with the quota system, because it is the only way to make the system completely fair for all individuals. Individuals of a different race should not take it negatively that the quota system doesn't allow the optimum number of seats for them. UM is looking for the most talented individuals in their particular race, socioeconomic condition, and environment to make up the class in their university and simulate the real-world working environment. Therefore the most talented individuals in their niches are taken to fill the quotas, and the university builds a class that is diverse and intelligent. This is a very good discussion all ;).</p>
<p>Just a note, quota systems have been illegal in the US since the Bakke decision in '78. No University may set a "specific number" of seats aside for minorities, and the University of Michigan, in accordance w/ the Supreme Court ruling, does not use a quota system. What it does do is use race as a factor to help certain students get admitted. The usage of race is the question.</p>
<p>Well yes, there are no specific number quota systems, but UM does make sure to evaluate candidates in their given environment and socioeconomic conditions along with their other credentials to build a class that is both diverse and intelligent and similar to the real-world working environment. Therefore, no subpar candidates are allowed solely based on the URM status. The best URM are taken into the university and no subpar ones. This is not taking away seats from other groups that do not have underrepresented status. I'm pretty sure the university only takes students that are driven and capable to succeed in the college environment otherwise they would not be accepted.</p>
<p>I dont know much about UMs admissions process, but I can use another university as an example. And I also feel like getting this out, so I guess this thread is going to suffer. At my school, about 30% of the students apply to Vanderbilt and about 40% of those applying are granted admission. Two students of the 22 applying this year were granted an early admission letter in March: a Hispanic (1300 SAT, 3.9 GPA) and an African American (1250 SAT, 3.0 GPA). The Hispanic was given a full scholarship. Both have been raised in a white majority society and come from very wealthy families.</p>
<p>However, Vanderbilt didnt provide three 1600 SAT 4.0 GPA students (two white, one Asian) the same treatment and after regular admissions, none were provided more than a couple thousand in scholarships. White students with 1400 SATs, 3.9 GPAs, and amazing extracurriculars were rejected.</p>
<p>How is this considered completely fair?</p>
<p>The reason that Vanderbilt has taken such a dramatic use of affirmative action is because of outside pressure. Vanderbilts trying to change its reputation of being a southern school filled with the remnants of southern white aristocracy along with increase its ranking as a national university by imitating the Ivies. Is the university actually becoming more diverse beyond a superficial layer? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>Also, what exactly is the real world work environment?</p>
<p>Do you really think that no underqualified applicants get accepted? I know a few people who were considered the best at their subpar high school and struggled freshmen year with a relatively light load of all intro level classes. Admissions is largely a crapshoot since it's so difficult to evaluate everybody with such little information, and while at least in theory nobody gets accepted solely based on URM status, it can certainly bump people into contention that would otherwise not be considered.</p>
<p>And it's not just necessarily acceptance, it's also financial aid. I know at least two people who got full rides for supposed minority status, one of which is only 1/8 mexican, and the other one is a white person who didn't check off race, but because of her name and high school's demographic they assumed she was a URM, and she might show up as poorer than she really is since her dad runs his own company.</p>
<p>Also, throughout my freshmen year I probably met less than five people who would really qualify as URM. In my history class, there was one kid from Africa and one older guy from Iraq, but both of them were really quiet and reserved, as was I. There was one of my friend's roommate's boyfriends who I talked to maybe twice. And then one of the older honors math people is from Venezuela, but I'm not sure how things work with international students.</p>
<p>How is my experience more diverse because of AA?</p>
<p>The "real working environment" is one that is diverse just like the current American population demographic. Therefore students of various backgrounds from the U.S. are admitted. These students are meant to be the most talented given their environment. Its unfortunate the case at Vanderbilt. The university probably does not receive many minority applications and therefore feels the need to take the most qualified URM candidates it receives even though they are not from a lesser socioeconomic background or not as well qualified as other candidates of other well-represented races. This is just because the university is overwhelmingly white and has the negative rich boys/Southern white aristocrat stigma. Therefore more scholarship money is given to these URM so that they will matriculate to the school to change the campus demographic. Vanderbilt is using AA incorrectly as a desperate ploy to gain more URM students, because few apply there in the first place. Instead, the university should focus on marketing itself better to the most talented URM in the nation so that it will gain more qualified applicants and not misuse AA by taking subpar URM candidates from wealthy families. AA is meant to be used for the top URM in the applicant poole and very competitive URM with slightly lesser stats but a very low socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>And dilksy, just because you didn't talk much to the URM you met during your first year, doesn't mean that they made someone else's experience more diverse or interesting from meeting and interacting with them. Diversity is what you make of it and how much you want to interact with people different than you. I'm not criticizing you or anything, but I think as a whole Michigan does a solid job utilizing AA in its admissions policies.</p>