<p>I approve of ^</p>
<p>Suggest some of you head over to <a href=“"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #633 by xiggi - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>"Race" in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11 - #633 by xiggi - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums;
“Race” in College Admission FAQ & Discussion 11
Yes #11 because some argue so adamantly. Some are just so focused on race and can;t let go. Hmm. Last time I checked in there, maybe two years ago, no one actually had any admissions experience. Just lots of certainty.</p>
<p>Elitesound, I admire your candor and courage. I am not a URM. Most non-URM’s, I think, are against the affirmative action process but my feelings are mixed on the issue, I certainly don’t have answers. One specific and personal thing that bothers me is that we had an named, affirmative program at my college when I started almost 40 years ago, yet it is still going. Things don’t seem to be improving. Why is that? Does it make sense to keep doing that which appears to be not working?</p>
<p>It is very complicated, but the fact that you are a URM and you are honestly expressing your deep concern about the fairness and efficacy of the system is very sobering for me.</p>
<p>I wish we had more efficacious policy options. One reason we don’t might be because our society is not ready to deal with unpleasant truths. For example, you may recall a study done not too long ago which concluded that elite law schools were actually hurting URM’s by admitting unprepared students. As a result, the students were dropping out disproportionately and failing the Bar exam disproportionately. The result was the opposite of what they say they wanted, which is more minority lawyers. Despite the facts on the page, the author of that study was not treated nicely, to put it gently. Who wants to invest time in studying the issues and coming up with real answers if that’s how you will be treated? It takes a lot of courage. Just ask Bill Cosby.</p>
<p>We are not going to solve the issue on this board at CC obviously. My hope is that you, Elitesound, take your youth and brains and guts and, now, education out into society and help us all fix this. Best of luck to you. </p>
<p>@lookingforward Interesting viewpoint - when I read the comments of this thread, people are focused on scores and other objective criteria, not race. I think the issue is people have let go of race and want objective standards employed, not subjectivity. Please google those cases I mentioned, there are tons of objective data in the cases, and that is what people across the country are responding to. Thanks for the link. </p>
<p>Despite the facts on the page, the author of that study was not treated nicely, to put it gently. Who wants to invest time in studying the issues and coming up with real answers if that’s how you will be treated?</p>
<p>Exactly. God forbid anyone says affirmative action is hurting people. Even if you have facts, you’re going to be slandered. </p>
<p>Even on this thread. The op brings up a topic about race. He gets called a ■■■■■ like 2 pages in. </p>
<p>@kaukauna - Well said! Thanks for saying it.</p>
<p>Awc, been there. And been on threads where we showed study limitations, including a prominent one people cling to, where the author himself (at a highly reputed U) says, these are random initial findings, not substantiated, don’t take them seriously. And yet people outside these realms do. More important, my views are based on my own engagement. I don’t know what your solutions would be, don’t need to know. </p>
<p>Of course there are issues. Of course there are ill prepared kids. Most CCers now refer to SES. I find comments proclaiming “handouts” based on race to be prejudicial. Quote what you want, it quacks. Maybe reread the message in your posts. Go to that other thread. Good luck.</p>
<p>Pet peeve of mine: putting random words in quotes. </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s not a handout. They take the best they can. As a normal distribution, urms have lower scores. The upper tail goes to hypms , and that leaves students like the op for Emory. Low scores are not tied to race. They’re tied to economic background. Lower scores aren’t a result of an inferior race. They’re resulting from a weaker education which is a result of income status. </p>
<p>In that sense, emory does the best it can. The op got admitted because emory needed urms and he was the best one available. Does anyone believe he would’ve been admitted if he wasn’t a urm? Then how can you possibly say it’s not ties to race?</p>
<p>@lookingforward - you would be happy to know that you have me speechless. I do not have a solution, even though you would not want to hear it. What I do know, however, is people know when something is illogical, even if they do not really know fully why.</p>
<p>Minorities did not like when others kept them out of places because of their race, which is subjective. All the right for the people being discriminated against to be angry as hell there.</p>
<p>Yet, many minorities, via affirmative action, want companies and colleges to review applications differently based on race, which is subjective. All the right for the people being discriminated against in that situation to be angry as hell there.</p>
<p>That is the fundamental problem people see all too clearly - someone gets angry when subjectivity hurts him, but then thinks it is OK when it hurts someone else.</p>
<p>Again, I have no answer, but instituting the same behavior that made a certain group upset, just rightfully makes another group upset. Cannot have it both ways, and even the densest person on the planet gets that - thus, the contentiousness of the issue. </p>
<p>a type of affirmative action exists/has existed in most countries, for many reasons. Often it is based on gender (it was here in Australia in the 1980’s) a certain number of spots at university had to be given to women. I have no doubt that there were just as many qualified women as men, so this shouldn’t have been a problem in any way. Many countries also have a specific number of seats in parliament reserved for women. How I feel about that is - well, you need a million bucks to make a billion right? Well, it definitely helps to get more women into politics by having some women in politics, and by the same logic it will help more african americans to get into fields they have previously been excluded from (or should I say we? I’m half African American and have grown up overseas, still consider myself AA in the end though) by having some AA in these jobs already. That is simple logic, if you see someone of your gender/race, when that grouping has historically been something causing discrimination, in a position of power, it will inevitably give you more hope to do the same thing and give you greater motivation as it can seem actually possible. Do you think people in the US would have even thought the notion of a female president was valid before Maggie Thatcher or Indira Ghandi? Very probably, the majority did not.</p>
<p>I am very unsure however, if this is the place from which the logic of Affirmative Action is coming from. From this point of view, it is a widely accepted and logical model. Could it do with some tweaking? Does it have downsides? Yes. Should the main focus be on giving students with poor socioeconomic backgrounds a leg up? I believe so, yes. As minorities make up a majority of the underprivileged in the US, this would still favour them, but also help disadvantaged non-minority students.</p>
<p>As for your personal experience, if you had those low test scores/low stats and are now doing fine at Emory, that just shows that their admissions process could also do with some tweaking. If you’re coping as well as everyone else, you deserve to be there as much. Doubting that will only hurt you, not help anyone. Thinking of constructive changes to wider systems (1. affirmative action 2. admissions processes) and putting them and your viewpoint out there, is definitely, I believe, valuable.</p>
<p>Wow, a lot of stuff happened!</p>
<p>Anyway, my imperfect solution would always have been to weight socioeconomic status far, far, far higher than ethnicity. A significant portion (if not most) of URMs at Emory are not from disadvantaged backgrounds and yet I outperformed them on things like standardized tests and am less sqeamish academically in general, and I’m not that good (my incoming stats. were on par with Emory’s and I did some cool things, but I’m not special I don’t think). Also, when it comes to AA at jobs and certain types of companies, seems to be failing if it was supposed to significantly raise representation. Most of us are apparently still not good enough to make significant headway in the upper echelons of these opps. Also, as an aspiring scientist or even-teacher scholar in science, the state of academia/higher ed really, really concerns me in the sciences. I hope that whenever I get an oppurtunity to pursue my Ph.D, I do it really well. so that some opps. open up to me, because at this point I am actually somewhat intimidated by my prospects when I browse the faculty pages of tier 1 research university science departments (especially the selective ones). I find it hard to believe that hardly no URMs were good enough (even after the Ph.D) to land positions at some top tier institutions for science. Seems we have more success with the professional schools, but academic science has me wondering…</p>
<p>I believe I can. Fortunately, and apparently I am much smarter and more creative than I thought in ways that go beyond multiple choice tests, which outside of standardized testing, I’m really not that great at anymore. The Emory experience I carved for myself brought these aspects out of me that would have likely remained dormant if I pursued a “standard” experience. I would know many facts without knowing how to use them or analyze them. There was no need for me to get an empty experience considering I wasn’t paying as much as others and thus not much was at risk. Emory was more so me investing in myself without the huge down-payment. There was little pressure for me to take the easiest and most secure paths to success. </p>
<p>Regardless, It still scares the hell out of me and makes me wonder if it’s possible for me to get there. If I got the Ph.D, I am strongly considering selling out to industry (perhaps pharmaceuticals) even though I was initially against that sort of option. I also enjoy teaching science, so maybe k-12 could be for me as well. K-12, with all its problems, could indeed use someone truly interested, and the US is certainly lacking in good K-12 STEM education (and if I end up becoming great at that through a training program and tons of experience, I could make a large impact especially if in the distant future I have the opportunity to say preside over my own school based upon successful models I’ve seen). That’s an option I’m exploring right now along with several. I’m assuming my 2 grad. school apps. didn’t work out. Maybe next time when I have more money, I can apply to more many more schools if I still want that. Also will see if NIH position works. I guess the point is, even with AA, some barriers still exist that might even put “qualified” URMs at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>In addition, I suspect that AA in its current form leads to those of other ethnicity to stereotype all URMs even if they are performing well (it’s assumed and subtly suggested by some that most of us don’t deserve to be here and cannot be trusted. Group work sometimes can have interesting dynamics for example). I don’t even want to get into some of the subtle “hints” I got during freshman year in something like my biology lab class (and this was by other students). I hear such stories are actually not that uncommon if you are a URM pursuing science. I remember watching a video of some MIT African American students discussing their experiences in a forum where non-URMs were present. I actually believe that it could be worth it to have a live discussion about such a thing like this at Emory (although in the case of that video, it was a student organization that sponsored the conversation I believe). </p>
<p>My response to the OP, whether the post was ■■■■■ or not, was to his personal circumstances now, not a policy. In actuality, each student brings a set of advantages and disadvantages with him or her to college.
It’s impossible to know all the factors that go into anyone’s acceptance to college. How does it help the OP to focus on why he was admitted 3-4 years later? How does it help students to look at the person next to them and wonder how they got in, or assume?
I don’t think anyone is admitted to college only on policy- they must show they are qualified, however, if one imagines that an admission to college was a total gift, a “handout” as one person mentioned, or just the fate of being picked as the best of a group of applicants, it’s not the same as just being given something. The real gift to any admitted student is the opportunity of education and for the student to benefit from his own hard work. My message to the OP is that what he does at Emory is more important now than his high school record.</p>
<p>@Pennylane2011 :Honestly, if I were the OP and felt like that as a freshman (In freshman orgo, even though I qualified, I was certainly nervous…This was a very tough teacher and I was 1 of 5 URMs in the class. And now-a-days, apparently no more than 1 signs up. Maybe the OP is on to something in that sense…Idk): I would have basically been in my classes looking to my left and my right and saying: “Wow, these people who are supposedly qualified are not that good” and keep moving…Because again, many of them aren’t no matter what their incoming credentials said. After a period of 3-4 years and doing fine, this idea would definitely be solidified. The worry that I didn’t deserve something would be relegated as unfounded even if based on things that I was taught to believe are the primary things that matter when it comes to admissions. I would basically be like: “Clearly it doesn’t matter how these people got here, because whatever got them here unless it was whining, grade-grubbing, and ease chasing, is not really being demonstrated anymore”. I would proceed to then find the people who act like they deserve to be at a place like this and also demonstrate that I deserve to be at Emory myself. Time is not best spent dwelling on a past that you question when you face these realities. Again, this conversation is a nice one to have, but there are many other issues with highered and even at Emory that relegate this a rather small issue. </p>
<p>And again, Emory is not that hard. The admissions thresholds in my opinion should not be used as a marketing tool (which, again, is how they are being used at most places, there are schools who have been increasing in selectivity more and more and more, but do not change their curriculum to challenge those level of students and weren’t really even challenging the “lower caliber” students they used to get. Some places may have even gone the opposite direction), but to reflect how difficult the institution is and whether or not one can perform well. Depending on your interests, the bar at some schools, even selective ones, are much lower than expected (even in disciplines known for challenge). I’m not sure if the relatively few non-minorities (because the overwhelming majority at most selective schools are Caucasian and Asian with Asians, as expected being over-represented at Emory in some incoming freshman classes upward to 700 or 800%, making up 30-35% of the freshman) that get squeezed out are necessarily being hurt or were squeezed out because of these reasons. Perhaps they could indeed end up at some place better (that perhaps does not cost as much money) for them. The only thing that would tick me off I guess is if a low income non-minority (or even minority) who was near or in the middle 50 and did have better than normal (even for Emory) credentials was denied (assuming essays weren’t crap). Such students could have truly and likely would have benefited from this opportunity as I did.</p>
<p>Bernie, it’s unfortunate that you didn’t feel challenged at Emory. I’m not familiar with the situation for students there. Mostly I argue with the sense of non-deserving, which can be self defeating. While some minorities can feel this way, other students have reported this as well, including women in fields where they are underrepresented. “Impostor Syndrome” is noted.
It seems that you have prevailed and have a number of options that are possible after graduation. As you stated, education evolves over time and some solutions lead to the need for more solutions, and some work well. Some colleges are cost prohibitive for some, selection is unpredictable. Still, most students in this country can get a solid education through various means. I know some who have excelled after attending community college, and some whose parents could afford the most prestigious schools yet they have not been able to graduate. We can’t control all the circumstances a student might face, but still, much depends on what the student makes of them. Maybe I’m a bit optimistic but I like to encourage them to make the most of an opportunity. </p>
<p>@Pennylane2011: No I was challenged! “I” was definitely challenged (I chose to challenge myself), it just isn’t normal for most to be but so challenged and I think many URMs here are afraid to be. For example, It saddens me to see a pre-med intentionally choose what they know is the easiest biology or chem instructors for example when they know that a solid foundation in these is crucial for them MCAT for example. As discussed here, many already don’t test on standardized tests as well as non-minorities even when they are in high income brackets. I feel like they are putting themselves at an even bigger disadvantage by saying that: “I’m not willing to work harder for the extra solid foundation I would receive if I took this course or that instructor.” The prep books and classes can only help them but so much if they have a weaker foundation than they should (and non-minorities will be getting this prep as well, so the gap stays or maybe even grows). I’m just saying that the way I approached it was to basically say that “most of these people in these classes are not actually better than me” (they weren’t statistically, nor were they in terms of attitude). I dropped any sense of fear I had about performing well in challenging courses. When I say that most schools aren’t challenging, I’m also reflecting on the culture at each school. Many schools, even selective ones like Emory (and many if not most others), have a culture that says “don’t challenge yourself academically beyond the bare minimum” and eventually the level of certain courses and the attitudes of the instructors begin to reflect this culture. That’s all I’m saying. </p>
<p>I’m saying that it seems many are “aiming low” when it comes to enrichment through academics (and sometimes even EC life) and I know they could do so much more because they are talented. As for my freshman orgo. anecdote: That was a very bad year where there were many sqeamish students. Starting the second semester, about 15-20 students (of like 55) dropped the course after the first or second exam simply because: “I don’t think I’ll be able to make an A”, and here I was thinking that basically all of the students in the class were better than I was and that they should have built a better resilience because they came from better high schools (Ironically, all 5 of us minorities stayed and we did pretty solidly. One of us, not me, actually got the high score on the ridiculously difficult final. And the other 4 of us were well above average). Sadly this was not the case. In addition, easy instructors run the class now and I see no increase in participation by URMs. The bad thing about that is that I know for sure that it correlates well with the pre-health mentoring office being established. They, in general, discourage students (even prospective chem majors) from taking the course, and I am willing to bet that they most definitely discourage minorities from doing it. I feel that discouraging either party is wrong. They should be encouraged to challenge themselves academically at higher than normal levels if they believe they can handle it. A strong performance can enhance their educational experience and set them apart from the crowds of “humdrum” science majors. My experience and that of the other 4 of us in the class I describe shows that we are capable of achieving at high levels in a tough environment (again, that school a stone’s throw away over there in midtown tells me the same thing). I don’t know the background of the other 4 other than them being at Emory, and it didn’t matter. We did what we wanted and needed to do.</p>
<p>Good for you not to give in to that fear Bernie. I see what you are saying. On top of this is that the classes you took are standard pre-med classes where preserving the GPA is a priority. So what you experienced for minorities is in part, true for every pre-med who knows that taking a very hard class could possibly lower his/her chances of acceptance in med school.
I do get what you are saying about lowered expectations, as I unfortunately have experienced where K-12 students have not been encouraged to push themselves. Sometimes it is parents who insist that their students take the more challenging classes. Students who may be first generation and not aware of what a student needs to do to be prepared for college, or whose parents are not comfortable advocating for them may miss out. Sadly, this can proportionally affect minority students. I have also known teachers who do encourage students to excel, and that is promising. There are also some schools with good programs that promote college preparation for underepresented students. Public schools also have the dilemma of standardized testing and may spend more time remediating students than challenging strong ones. The phenomenon you describe- the idea of “I cant” takes place long before the bright student gets to college. </p>
<p>I agree that if more students were like you, they would realize a higher potential. Changing institutions is huge but you can influence individuals. You, and your self motivated peers are, in a way, the leaders. If you have children one day, you can pass on this value, and you can also be involved in education in your community as a teacher, volunteer, mentor, or leader. For now, I hope that graduate programs recognize this quality on you, and give you the opportunity to learn more and show others how to as well.</p>
<p>Hey everyone, thanks for moving the discussion to the general implications of my post, outside of the scope of my own personal experience.</p>
<p>As for the ■■■■■ accusations, it’s completely valid to doubt my legitimacy, I can’t make you believe me. I really don’t know what part of my posts are really that farfetched. If you doubt that someone with such low scores could get into Emory, there’s more examples than myself. However, that would be hard to prove since this is a topic many people will not discuss openly in-person, as most URMs feel uncomfortable talking about scores if theirs were comparatively lower. Hence my own attempt to be anonymous here while still being able to discuss.</p>
<p>To address Pennylane’s concern:
I agree that a negative mentality towards the past is self-defeating. My initial post reflected how I felt towards the facts if i was an accepted product of affirmative action, since no other part of application was “special” I came to the conclusion: Emory chose me based on my race.</p>
<p>I realize my first post came off almost self-loathing, when that was not what was intended. That’s not how I feel at all, it’s more thinking bigger picture at the people who are rejected with lower socioeconomic statuses but are ORMs. I knew many underprivileged Asians that were rejected from many top schools despite their applications being significantly better than the URM applications who got accepted.</p>
<p>Moving forward, I am curious about exploring the relationships between race and class, and, whether affirmative action based purely on race is in fact harmful to URM communities and society in general. My argument is absolutely, and once realizing this is a broken system, how do we fix it with all the negative stigma?</p>
<p>You, and your self motivated peers are, in a way, the leaders. If you have children one day, you can pass on this value, and you can also be involved in education in your community as a teacher, volunteer, mentor, or leader. And, by your presence, encourage others. Let’s remember that change takes time, sometimes, a few generations. Good luck to all, keep your heads up.</p>
<p>haha! Thanks for the encouragement, and your observation about pre-meds was mine as well. That’s essentially what pushed me to take harder classes (even grad. classes). I knew I didn’t want to be in an environment dominated by that attitude. One of the minorities I speak of from freshman organic was pre-med and was amazing (several of us were including the guy who got the top score, he was also pre-med) though! She was a top tennis player and applied math major: <a href=“Tennis player Zahra Dawson invited to White House”>http://news.emory.edu/stories/2012/06/athletics_dawson_visits_white_house/campus.html</a>
She was one tough woman. I remember her. She was quite talented and was not afraid to use it.<br>
That sort of achievement needs to be promoted even among non-minorities at Emory. To me, it just seems that even the pre-meds here are more squeamish than normal for an elite school. It’s almost as if they were expecting it to be easy and will do anything to make it that way. I think it’s self-defeating. The most exceptional MD and MDPh.D applicants took a risk every now and then and I feel like these risks are more common at other schools. The fact that we have a mentoring office that basically says: “No don’t do it” or “here, take these easy courses or instructors” doesn’t help. For example, look at how Princeton advises its pre-meds (I went and looked at some leading schools because I had “higher caliber” friends complaining about their advice and I was wondering if it was universal at leading schools. It isn’t. If one is a serious pre-med that is also serious about learning or achieving at a higher than normal level, I would follow advice from these institutions. I mean, they are already better at placing their students and I don’t think all of it can be explained by the fact that they are simply smarter) in this Q and A thing and imagine the exact opposite at Emory. You can imagine how mentoring and advice that promotes behavior opposite to what is being promoted there can be detrimental to success and the academic environment as a whole. It makes taking regular science courses boring or unnecessarily stressful (because even in an easy class, you have people only discussing grades, tests, or assignments. It’s mainly just trying to figure out the content and format on the test more so than learning the material. As soon as the first test proves to be easy, interest and engagement drops in many classes). But anyway, here it is: </p>
<p>Here it is: </p>
<p><a href=“https://www.princeton.edu/hpa/faq/coursework/”>https://www.princeton.edu/hpa/faq/coursework/</a></p>
<p>They specifically have a section on difficult courses and majors:
<a href=“https://www.princeton.edu/hpa/faq/coursework/all/#comp000050b73234000000b96c7c48”>https://www.princeton.edu/hpa/faq/coursework/all/#comp000050b73234000000b96c7c48</a></p>
<p>They often tell people to “tough it out” or “don’t underload or drop below a normal load that often”</p>
<p>Do you know how many times pre-meds here do that (certainly, more than one semester for many)? </p>
<p>It’s fairly well-rounded advice and answers that accounts for the differences in student interest and caliber instead of just treating everyone as if they are a fragile, neurotic pre-med like our office does (you’ll find that their definition of “safe side” is nowhere near as conservative as ours. It actually is much more flexible. Their advice also has a lot of nuance because the mentors actually consult professors to find out about different courses and the syllabi, structure, etc). For example on AP credit, our Phmo will tell students (even exceptional ones) to just “retake the course for an A and the review” which is stupid because general chemistry, for example, is not conducive to the retention of the information and grades and tests harshly. It’s best to just move on and find advanced coursework to build or supplement the knowledge one already has in the field. It’s wasting time to screw around with the weedout courses at selective schools. In addition, even if you do well, there is a good chance the instructor will not recognize you in such a large environment (and then the rec. letter will be “so so” because many people did well with rather “meh” level content). People should just be encouraged to toughen up and work hard for their grades. It will actually benefit them. Many pre-meds at Emory retake every single introductory sequence for which they had AP credit even if there was another option (and many students who has AP physics credit and calc. credits won’t even try calc. based physics) It’s kind of embarrassing. You’d think we’d be a little better. </p>
<p>I don’t think Emory is alone in having to preserve itself in tough economic times. It is known for being generous in financial aid, and by doing so, provides opportunities for students who could not otherwise afford to go there. It also has to preserve itself in order to provide education, so it needs to keep up with rankings and show its effectiveness at placing students in medical school. With admission to med school being so competitive, and with the huge focus on GPA, I don’t think Emory is alone in encouraging getting the highest one possible. Perhaps the medical school admission focus on GPA is also to blame for that, but also a medical education needs to produce uniformly competent physicians, so that all are able to provide a standard of quality care and it has to select for that. </p>
<p>Diversity is accepted now as a desirable quality. I think many students would not be happy at a school that did not include students from many backgrounds. I doubt that a student is admitted on only one reason, but for the sake of argument, if we assume that OP was admitted on the basis of race, then that student brings a background that benefits the student body. I think we can agree that affirmative action has pros and cons, and perhaps some aspects of it are harmful, but students today are experiencing it as it is now, not as it was when it was first established</p>
<p>I will date myself by stating that I experienced the era around the time of the civil rights movement (Ok, I was little though) and recall people thinking that many of the ideas of that movement would change the world. At that time, affirmative action was considered a way of justice and opportunity. For every action there is a reaction. You know from medical studies that every good medication also has side effects. Now we are witnessing the results of that idea, which includes the resentment from students excluded as a result of it, and as the OP states, a feeling of diminished expectations. However, we are also seeing minorities in professions that I did not see as a kid. My pediatrician was a white male- and everybody’s was, and a minority or female doctor would have been unusual. My kids’ pediatricians included African American females, and to my kids, this was entirely normal. Our world is still flawed, there is a ways to go, but in general, there is movement towards good as well as new problems. It’s good that students like you are not complacent. There is still room for progress and you are part of that.</p>