<p>but colleges ALREADY give a tip to underpriveleged students. So i don't see your point when you say it should be based on socioeconomics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Less time for homework, EC's, etc.
Weaker economic safety net for a family equals more burden for high-school aged children to contribute, be it in the form of part-time jobs, domestic chores, or baby-sitting. This leaves less room to focus on academia.
[/quote]
The primary beneficiaries of AA (to top schools) are upper middle class black students in the 1200-1300 (out of 1600) SAT range.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Less money for prep.
No tutors; no prep classes; no money for the kind of equipment (ranging from basic utensils to an internet connection) most middle- to upperclass students take for granted using to succeed.
[/quote]
See above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Less cultural capital.
If your parents lack familiarity with academia or the system in general, they will NOT be able to advise you; help you out with homework; elbow their way through the admissions process for you. This might be one of the primary reasons some URM groups are very, very underrepresented in higher education overall, while others aren't - education may seem a lost dream for many groups who never got a chance to, collectively, feel comfortable navigating the educational system to begin with.
[/quote]
Except that the people who mostly benefit from AA likely have well educated or intelligent parents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4. Less prestigeous elementaries and high schools don't help.
It's a fact that the most prestigeous universities take less metric values into account, which is exactly what the OP is complaining about when assuming his high scores entitles him to a spot -- yet, these same institutions STILL accept extremely high rates of students from private, predominantly affluent white, prep schools. If someone could find and post the precise numbers here, that'd be great.
[/quote]
A reasonable point. Another reason to do away with race though, because URMs are not barred from private schools. So URMs that go to private schools get huge advantages over their non-URM peers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
5. Higher education is still to this day shaped by, and for, the white affluent elite. The older generation of academia still suffer from white manosis; Eurocentrism still remains rampant; preferred EC's at elite colleges still reflect upper-class sports. In numerous indirect and institutionalized ways, higher education is still to this day set up for URM's to adapt to the white academic culture or fail. In some ways, AA makes up for this - but then again, to give some spots, you have to take some. Spots which, I may add, have unfairly been biased towards privileging NON-URM's for a very, very long time.
[/quote]
And this explains away the asian dominance in admissions, how? If Eurocentrism means valuing academics and being a critical thinker - then yes, that's a good quality that should be maintained in higher education and should be something which colleges try to screen for. This means academics and academic minded ECs should still be used to pad resumes.</p>
<p>Yes, those spots given to URMs will be taken from ORMs (Asians).</p>
<p>Regardless, this idiocy of "white" is absolutely retarded. Sub-Saharan African decendents are likely better represented at top colleges like HYS than WASPs (they're the bad guys, remember) and certainly better than Irish or Italian sub groups. The reasons are obvious: Jews and Asians are academically much better (on average) than everyone else and thusly make up a much higher portion of the college demographic at top schools (ie: less space for other people).</p>
<p>
New tip for improving SAT scores: convert to Judaism. It's guaranteed to raise it 100 points!!! </p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Better yet, Asian person should convert to Judaism, guaranteed entrance anywhere...</p>
<p>Go AA, if anything, it should remain just because people like the OP exist.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne: the statement that most of the URMs that benefit from AA come from privileged backgrounds is false. Their simply aren't enough URMs that fit that qualification. There goes 95% of your argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Payne: the statement that most of the URMs that benefit from AA come from privileged backgrounds is false. Their simply aren't enough URMs that fit that qualification. There goes 95% of your argument.
[/quote]
There simply aren't enough URMs that fit that classification? You have to be joking.</p>
<p>What sort of numbers do you think I'm talking about? Literally, we are talking about 5000-6000 black students each year, in order for the top schools to meet their quotas. Conveniently, this is roughly how many black students score above 1200 (out of 1600) on the SAT. Just as with Whites and Asians, Black students who perform at 2 standard deviations above their mean are highly likely to be from the middle class, upper middle class.</p>
<p>You don't think 100% of URMs live in some squalid barrio, do you?</p>
<p>and just because a URM scores a 1200 or better, or by todays test an 1800 or better, they're probably privileged? how poorly do you think underprivileged URMs score? I'd also like to see where you get your stats for that assumption, and also the 5000-6000 per year. </p>
<p>-also AA doesn't only benefit those going to the top universities, keep that in mind.</p>
<p>to the OP:</p>
<p>I know it sucks. The whole college admissions system is in shambles. In my private school, there was a URM (hispanic) with a 1950 SAT admitted into Columbia, while a white kid who goes to the same school with a 2170 SAT, higher GPA (top 2% of the class), better application Essay (he writes ridiculously awesome essays), 5s on all his AP tests, and better ECs was rejected. He's also a first geneation American whose parents emigrated from Europe. The URM is not. This is just so wrong and so stupid. How is a URM who goes to a private school disadvantaged? And if college admissions are supposed to take hardships into account, why didn't they consider the fact that the 2170 SAT student from my school is a 1st generation American and 1st generation college student? I know SATs and GPA aren't the only factors, but come on, this is just blatantly ridiculous.</p>
<p>I don't know how to do that quote thing, but this was one of the best posts in this thread (from Willow something)</p>
<p>The understandable reaction of the thread starter puts the lie to the "diversity" rationale for race preferences. Of how much benefit is so called "diversity" when it means that white or asian students are looking at their classmates who received preferences with full knowledge that they wouldn't be there but for their special status? Given the well documented cascade effect of preferences that leaves miniorities as the rump end academically at any given school, doesn't it only enforce negative stereotypes and attitutdes in the minds of whites and asians when they see that their minority classmates, almost to a one, are among the weaker students in the class? So-called diversity when accomplished through preferences only hardens the attitudes of those it purportedly will enlighten.</p>
<p>Whether or not the OP included the fact that he also feels sligthed by athletes and legacies is irrelevant. There are people who feel slighted by all those inadequacies. The fact that the real world isn't fair is not reason to shoot down the OP's complaints and call him a racist. Just because everyone does it does not mean it's the right thing to do.</p>
<p>It doesn't promote people to be racist if they just remember the entire reason why they aren't as strong students. It's easy to acknowledge that when it doesn't affect you, but when it affects people they tend to forget.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and just because a URM scores a 1200 or better, or by todays test an 1800 or better, they're probably privileged?
[/quote]
This is just obvious. Socioeconomic status correlates well with SAT scores. The children of professors do better than the children of retail staff on the SATs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how poorly do you think underprivileged URMs score?
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how we define privilieged. But I would say that at least 50% of the black students who score above 1200 on the SATs come from the top quintile in the income distribution. This is roughly ~3000 students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also like to see where you get your stats for that assumption, and also the 5000-6000 per year.
<p>I just looked at the average SAT scores for blacks and the standard deviation and extrapolated a bit to get the 5000-6000 scoring above 1200 figure.</p>
<p>Right but the average top university has about 8% african americans and of those, using the numbers of UCLA or UCB, 4% were probably tipped by AA. It can be inferred that if most of the high SAT scoring african americans are upper-middle class, then almost all of the 4% NOT helped by AA was probably upper-middle class, which means that the 4% helped by AA, was more than 50% composed of those who aren't upper-middle class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right but the average top university has about 8% african americans and of those, using the numbers of UCLA or UCB, 4% were probably tipped by AA.
[/quote]
Incorrect statistics. Considering that the UCs don't really have AA in any meaningful sense I'm guessing the candidates got in legitly or from sports. I'd guess 50% are on sports scholarship (the males, at least).</p>
<p>If you look at Stanford/Yale - places with 25th percentiles 2.3-2.7 standard deviations above the black student average - it's pretty safe to say that AA tips way more than 50%. It's simply a question of quantity. A black student who is 3 standard deviations from average is at ~1460 (this was crudely gotten). That means there is roughly ~150 black students who reach this score (or above). That fills Harvard's quota alone. What about the rest of the Ivy league? MIT? University of Chicago? There is a massive dearth of applicants and so they all have to lower their academic standards and start valuing race more.</p>
<p>Rather than beat up the OP, it might be good to try to educate him. First off, most very selective schools don't admit URM students out of some sense of pity or as a kind of compensation for past injustices (though that was part of the thinking a generation ago). </p>
<p>These students are admitted for the same reason as everyone else: because they are intellectually more than capable of doing the work; because they can benefit from the type of education that the school offers; because they bring unique talents and experiences to the institution; and because they can use their education in constructive ways after they graduate. </p>
<p>A student from an inner-city school might easily be a star on measures like these, even though he/she has an SAT score 150 points lower than a student who went to an elite prep school. That difference in test scores (or gpa) doesn't mean that the inner-city educated kid will learn less (on the contrary), contribute less to the college, or emerge from the experience any less prepared to make a difference in the world. In fact, a moment's reflection suggests that, by the standards that really count, the inner-city kid may be at least as qualified as the prep school grad.</p>
<p>Yes, because poor Asians don't grow up the urban centers of cities like SF, San Jose, LA, or NYC. Oh wait, nevermind. They still get discriminated against because of their race.</p>
<p>Our country has become so politically correct that for many of the top ranked colleges in the nation, stats no longer matter when they can fill up their ranks with a quota of minorities -- disabled students, a variety of races, homosexuals, different states, different countries, a mixture of religions, different economic statuses, and a horde of different lifestyles. I don't feel that I am too biased in saying this, since I would fit into one or two of those categories as a minority. The quotas do exist despite what they claim -- simple evidence of this is how the Ivys always end up admitting roughly the same percent of certain minorities. This would seldom happen in a random system where applicants are chosen based on grades, test scores, and so on with no regard to outside factors.</p>
<p>Most of the top ranked colleges don't really admit that many new undergraduate students each year. When these quotas are broken down, there simply isn't much room left for any 'average' person in this country at most top ranked colleges. By average, I mean the normal white middle class standard religion non-athletic male whose parents had a typical job and who went to a typical high school, even if he has far better grades and a much more amazing application than most other applicants.</p>
<p>If we perpetuate the idea of a "pure" meritocracy, we would effectively be reproducing traditional institutionalized racism. These debates come up over and over again and all I can say is that, yes, to get to a diverse classroom and equal society some typically white male, highly qualified based on numeric criteria only, spots WILL have to go to underrepresented groups in academia.</p>
<p>Deal with it. If you do so with grace, you may even be part of the solution rather than the problem, at least on an emotional plane.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we perpetuate the idea of a "pure" meritocracy, we would effectively be reproducing traditional institutionalized racism.
[/quote]
Wrong. AA keeps Asians out of top schools. Or are they now part of the institutionalized racism that keeps blacks wallowing poverty?</p>
<p>
[quote]
These debates come up over and over again and all I can say is that, yes, to get to a diverse classroom and equal society some typically white male, highly qualified based on numeric criteria only, spots WILL have to go to underrepresented groups in academia.
[/quote]
You clearly don't get it. White non-Jewish males (ie: the bad guys) are already underrepresented in top colleges. This isn't about maintaining the current power structure in America. If that was the case then people (non-Jewish European descendants) would be arguing to increase discrimination against Asians and Jews - the people they are most likely to compete with in the upper echelon. No non-Jewish white person is arguing that Jews and Asians should be limited to allow more White people into college; quite the opposite - URMs are arguing that Asians should be limited because they are way overepresented. Reducing AA increases Asian enrollment in top colleges. You're arguing that AA is good because it reduces the amount of Asians in top colleges. Perhaps the most xenophobic thing presented in this thread so far.</p>
<p>This goes to the core of what universities are supposed to be about. Academic achievement.</p>
<p>I didn't even bring Asians up in my post, what the hell are you talking about (and what hat did you pull your accusation of xenophobia out of?), but yes, they are overrepresented in proportion to their populace numbers - people of groups whose membership correlate to poverty are not. </p>
<p>Asians are definitely targets of racism, but just as previous ethnic groups (which in itself is a bit odd to say in relation to "Asians"- a lot of groups fall under this category, and South Asians are NOT in the same situation as their counterparts) that climbed up the class ladder broke through poverty lines and into academia, they do not need the same KIND of structural assistance that people of African, Hispanic, South-Asian descent do. </p>
<p>In addition, it is wholly wrong to be looking at this as a race issue, rather than one of socioeconomic situation. We need more working-class kids in academia for it to get anywhere, and for these groups to get anywhere, too - period.</p>