<p>“But these individuals do not attack white applicants or Asian applicants with lower scores who are accepted, did they not also take thier spot?”</p>
<p>People don’t blame these people because if it happens it’s very rare. The stereotype is that African Americans with lower test scores take a majority of the spots. If anything, I’m pretty certain that if you get rejected most whites and Asians outperformed you on most things.</p>
<p>And as for AA on a whole, I’m against it in all entirely whether it’s based on race or class. By the time you hit college, you’re already pretty developed intellectually I’d say. If you don’t know how to do simple algebra 2, it’s going to take you awhile to understand it and you’ll already be behind. So why does it matter if you’re black, white, yellow, poor, rich whatever. You’re already behind when you enter college. I think the best and easiest solution is to go to the root of the problem which is cleaning up the inner city schools. Programs like Teach for America are great for this. There is no use trying to help people when they are already established. It’s best to mold them when they are kids.</p>
<p>But that’s the thing. As much as colleges try, they don’t admit purely on intellect. What they seem to admit on, among others, is SAT test-taking ability, number of AP courses, and extracurriculars. All of these factors are heavily influenced by money money money. A school like Trinity sends like 10 kids to my college every year, and I doubt that their kids are 10x smarter than ones in the average school in America. No, they’re just 10x richer and have better access to educational resources.</p>
<p>They admit people who they think will succeed. The indicators of this is based on a standardized test, how you’ve done in school (preferably by more standardized tests), and how much of a work load you can handle on top of that. Yes, money does influence this, but that’s why they also have your essay where you can explain your particular circumstance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so. Additionally, we are already disadvantaged by affirmative action as we have discussed in a previous thread, Asians have a harder time of getting into Ivies because there are so many of us with the same high stats.</p>
<p>One of my problems with AA is that we tend to forget that white people were discriminated against as well throughout much of our history. Examples- Irish, Gypsies, and Jews. Jews and Gypsies have been enslaved for thousands of years, and Gypsies are still getting laws reversed in many states that discriminate against them. I understand that blacks may have had it worse, but I do not believe it should still be used as an excuse for wealthy minorities to get into colleges. That being said, I firmly believe any AA should be based on socio-economic status like many before me have mentioned.</p>
<p>Let’s say i’m the one with the original 50m headstart. What chance do I have when the next person is already at the finish line and never had to race?</p>
<p>You said that affirmative actions allows beneficiaries to win the race even without having to compete (a very questionable analogy to being with). You said that instead, it should even up the disparities and get rid of the metaphorical 50m headstart.</p>
<p>So, my question was, how exactly would the disparities be evened up? Obviously, you’ve taken favourable considerations in admissions off the table. What’s your alternative plan?</p>
<p>It’s fine to give people a boost in admissions to make up for a lack of opportunity. But it is wrong to toss out more qualified applicants to admit people who “came from behind.” This would, in fact, let the disadvantaged surpass those who are actually qualified. Sheed is saying that’s wrong.</p>
<p>I’m a little confused as to why people seem to think that money has so much to do with getting into a good school.</p>
<p>Growing up, both of my parents were still in school, and our entirely family of 4 were living off of their scholarships. Did my GPA suffer? No. You can do homework the same with or without money. Did my extra-curriculars suffer? No. Volunteering or getting a part-time job doesn’t require extra money, joining school clubs doesn’t require extra money. Being in a more disadvantaged neighborhood also allows for greater avenues for initiatives. The only place were money might make a difference is in paying for SAT books. And even then, the difference is minimal since most high schools buy access codes to the CollegeBoard review site, which is more than enough review material for someone to do well on the SAT’s.</p>
<p>Frankly, AA wasn’t made for the purpose of money discrepancies. Colleges already took the student’s hardships into account in evaluating their success rate, that’s where the essay comes in. AA was made so that colleges could not discriminate against minorities on the sly. But nowadays, this issue is pretty much non-existent in schools where it would’ve made a difference (Top 25) so it would not require such an extreme policy as it is today. That is why AA should not be here, and that is why there is no need for an alternative.</p>
<p>Expensive Summer Program would be better than starting your own Soup Kitchen? (just an example.) </p>
<p>Doubt it.</p>
<p>If you have the passion for making something extraordinary happen, usually money isn’t what’s stopping you. It’s other factors like fears and ability. Everybody has the same opportunities in terms of making their application resume shine, although the types are different. A intentionally money-padded resume is also very easy to see through.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people are taking admission guys to be either stupid or ignorant. Which is a bad assumption to make.</p>
<p>No but who’s to say that the low income kid will have the initiative to start the soup kitchen? My point is that it takes much less effort for upper income kids to improve their resumes. Another example is SAT tutors. You might say “you don’t really need an SAT tutor” and I would agree, but every person I know who had one said their scores improved dramatically. I’m not trying to argue that the advantage is huge, just that it exists.</p>
<p>Then, I ask again the question, is it enough that a policy such as AA is needed? </p>
<p>Additionally, is it not true that by being able to even attend those expensive summer programs, the better off student has also demonstrated considerable initiative and has gained more skills as a result. And isn’t having this initiative what would set this one disadvantaged kid apart from the rest? The only real expectation for applicants is that they ‘jump’ off the page. To do so does not necessarily require money. And the effort behind each individual can be quite obvious to the admissions people.</p>
<p>I think you are all getting it wrong. You all seem to think that the boost is given to benefit the kids. Absolutely not! The boost is given to benefit the colleges. Just as colleges like to have diversity in type of kids, geographics, background, interest, abilities, sex, etc, it wants diversity in race as well. What a boring campus it would be to have no color at all. Such great discussions about issues on race with no one of that persuasion. So just as the classics majors will get a boost over the premeds when the college wants more of such kids, so it goes with race. Has little to do with benefitting any particular race.</p>
<p>What do you mean by “is it enough that a policy such as AA is needed”? Are you asking if I support AA? I’m undecided, but I’m much more comfortable with the idea of socioeconomic preferences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, in many cases it is suggested by the kid’s college counselor. The parents foot the bill, and all the kid has to do is show up. College prep begins in 9th grade at top private schools. Kids are much more aware of what colleges are looking for than in poor public schools, and parents are very willing to make it happen. There’s a reason that wealthy kids do so well in college admissions, and it’s not just Social Darwinism.</p>
<p>Haha, no. It was meant as a discussion question. Something to wonder about. To be honest, I’m not absolutely decided either. I don’t really like it being based on race or economic status, nor do I like it not existing at all. But there are points against having it that was not being stated in this thread, which is why I brought it up. Playing the Devil’s Advocate if you will. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not very familiar with the type that you’re talking about then. Most of the ones that I’ve encountered (which actually impress Admission Councils) are ones where you must qualify via some standard/application. i.e. Duke TiP. Additionally, with these camps, there’s usually some sort of full-ride scholarship if you do sufficiently well. Again, I believe that there is a strong possibility that doing something that only requires money would only gain you so many ‘points’. Colleges look far more for actual accomplishment and initiative. And attending a summer activity with only money as a requirement does not strike me as such. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this wholeheartedly, I also believe that they do not feel that they would ever be able to reach colleges of that stature because of their environment. But I feel that this could be remedied far more by introducing an awareness to the children of the true possibilities. Additionally, with this new generation of the internet, any child with a true desire can come on to a site just like this one and gain the same sort of advice.</p>
<p>haha everyone should watch the mad tv job interview on youtube it’s an exaggeration but it’s an example of what a lot of people who are against AA are talking about</p>