<p>Yeah, i reluctantly agree. But I created this thread mostly to be informative as a justification for AA, bc of abundance of negativity directed vicariously toward minorities who get accepted to top colleges on this website by criticizing affirmative action.</p>
<p>^That is yet another reason to at least change the system. Because it puts some minorities in a bad light and creates further stereotyping of all minorites.(and I mean all minorities beneficiary or not).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry to nitpick, but it’s less than 24. UCB and UCLA definitely don’t consider race, and I’ve heard that Caltech doesn’t either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just semantics. When people say “more qualified”, they usually mean more desirable to colleges on the basis of academic record, extracurricular activities, and personal qualities–basically everything except a student’s race and socioeconomic status. The question that the AA debate seeks to answer is whether making admissions decisions on the basis of these characteristics alone is a good thing. So while I completely agree with you that phrases such as “more qualified” are meaningless in an objective sense, please recognize that you are merely pointing out a semantic discrepancy and are not actually engaging the fundamental argument which AA detractors are making.</p>
<p>People have way too much time on their hands, who cares about A.A. Yeah, it gives preference to some minorities. But people are all like OMG THATS RACISM!!! People chill, A.A is meant to help even the playing field not punish Asians & Whites for their excellence. I know that college admissions/job applicants aren’t going to say you’re black/hispanic/native american here’s your Harvard acceptance letter/six fig salary. Think about it this way all this time you can be complaining about A.A you could a) be doing something WAY more productive with your life and b) spending some time to actually help bridge the gap whether it be by tutoring inner-city kids and make a positive good. Seriously, this topic has been beaten down resurected and beaten down once more. Its over, let it go and move on.</p>
<p>AA does hurt Asian, according to Wikipedia Asians lost 50 points during the peak of affirmative action, which is considerable.</p>
<p>How come nobody complains about nepotist practices and the obvious advantages Whites have with that (especially in corporate America). Is it fair that some people have an inherent advantage because their dad is the CEO is a huge corporation? Of course not. But as I found out during an internship at a major corporation, interns that weren’t necessarily qualified got positions solely based on who they knew. Not surprisingly, the people they knew also happened to usually be White and were of the Director level or higher. This is proof that affirmative action is still needed, as minorities just don’t have the sort of opportunities or the connections that their White counterparts have. They also are not represented in the upper echelon of the corporate hierarchy like Whites are, thus they are at a gross disadvantage.</p>
<p>The two issues are totally different. Race is a protected class under federal anti-discrimination law; economic status is not.</p>
<p>No they aren’t, they are in fact directly proportional. AA is used in corporate America to give minorities more opportunities. Nepotism directly interferes with AA’s ability to do this since Whites inherently have an advantage. They are naturally predisposed to help one of their own, so it means minorities are thrown under the bus and the cycle continues.</p>
<p>How about those Whites that don’t have the family help? Screw em?</p>
<p>How about those Asians that don’t have the family help? Screw em?</p>