<p>UCLAEE, you’re not getting the point. My friend had a 4.0 with several varsity sports, and he was never accepted to any university or out of state schools. His high school did not offer a foreign language, or any AP and Honors class, so his 4.0 came from all regular classes. I am not talking about the students, I’m talking about the value of the education that the people are receiving. There is some serious ******** going around, and the playing field is not equal everywhere. Tell me why my friend who never had a B in any of his classes did not get into any colleges. Or the simple fact that there was no foreign language class available for him to take which excluded him from any college admissions? You know you are wrong, and you know I am right that the students of that school who even did extremely well throughout high school had no chance against other people who went to affluent high schools.</p>
<p>I know thisis bring up a touchy subject, but look at America’s history, 140 years ago blacks were slaves. They weren’t on a reasonably leveled playing field until around the late 80’s. But it is very nearly impossible for some blacks to erase the generational unfairness in Amerixan society. And because themselves and their familes were only until recently(comparitively) second class citizens, they held low paying jobs if any. So, I think it is much too general a statement to claim a leveled playing field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the two are intertwined. If child A has parents who had a better ‘result’ than child B, then child A has more opportunity than child B. And hence, child A and B don’t have equality of opportunity because A’s parents can offer more than B’s parents can. (e.g. tutors) Sure, child B can work harder and get the same results, but if B has to do that then, again, they’re not equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>your claim reeks of sexism (and also falsity)</p>
<p>[Equal</a> Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html]Equal”>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, i’m sure people go to schools like Phillips Exeter Academy for the LACK of opportunities it offers :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so then we should have racial AA on the basis that their cultures don’t have education and professional success as collective values. I don’t see what the problem is here.</p>
<p>Essentially what you’re arguing is it’s essentially bad luck (let’s call it cultural-value luck) which determines why these people do worse. If such a luck exists, and a given group of people have it and others don’t, then we should try to make up for that luck by offering it to the groups of people who weren’t lucky enough to have it. And hence, still have racial AA.</p>
<p>Of course this doesn’t mean individuals are determined to not go to college, but speaking in terms of percentages of millions of people, one individuals accomplishment doesn’t suddenly refute the lack of accomplishment of dozens of others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An ad hominem is an argument that says you’re wrong because you’re stupid. My post was about the reasoning you used, which was clearly ridiculous. But if you want “cogent” arguments…</p>
<p>[1] Melting pot means the opposite of what you think it does. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
[2] Your support for your contention that public schools offer equal (or even greater) opportunities to private schools was exactly I have personally attended both types. As charming as that is, it’s not remotely convincing.
[3] Men are routinely lifted by pulling another man down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>actually, an (argumentum) ad hominem litterally means “argument to the man” (although i think when “ad” is used with people it means “towards”) it’s when you make an argument to some aspect of the person that has nothing to do with the argument they originally made. it is not just on the basis of something like stupidity; It could be on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.</p>
<p>One of my good buddies went to Cal back in the day; being “baked” at Berkeley meant something altogether different. Good times. I think. Maybe not. Can’t remember.</p>
<p>I don’t think many people have a problem in giving affirmative action to truly disadvantaged kids, but affirmative action has now evolved (or should I say devolved) into basically a quota system.</p>
<p>The colleges say they are engaging in “holistic” admissions, but to me, it seems like they have a preset target figure already in mind regarding what percentage of each minority they want in their class, and then they work backwards to achieve that target number, with the end result being, for example, that an african american who is the daughter of a teacher and a police officer is given preference over an asian kid who comes from a poor family. </p>
<p>Many people supporting affirmative action now openly proclaim that it is OK to give preference to a member of a particular racial group even if he is not from a disadvantaged background, just so the college can achieve “diversity”. Hence, asian and jewish kids are effectively discriminated against, because they are considered “over” represented for diversity purposes. I, for one, want the most competent surgeon operating on my child, no matter what their color. I especially deplore giving affirmative action to someone simply because they are “hispanic”. Many people who are hispanic are indistinguishable from regular caucasions, yet they get a break on admissions. For example, I have a client who got into Columbia. She is hispanic. Yet she came from a priviledged background, and her family lives in a $500,000 condo in Miami. Should she really get preference simply because she has a Spanish last name???.</p>
<p>“Many people supporting affirmative action now openly proclaim that it is OK to give preference to a member of a particular racial group even if he is not from a disadvantaged background, just so the college can achieve “diversity”.”</p>
<p>I might be one of those, assuming the preference means being okay with a 2050 SAT vs a 2100 SAT, else being equal. I don’t know about “many”. If CC’s “cupcake” and RACE FAQ threads are a fair 'sample (probably not), people like myself are very “underepresented”. Nice for those who feel differently, and power to you! Bring it!</p>
<p>"The colleges say they are engaging in “holistic” admissions, but to me, it seems like they have a preset target figure already in mind regarding what percentage of each minority they want in their class, and then they work backwards to achieve that target number, with the end result being, for example, that an african american who is the daughter of a teacher and a police officer is given preference over an asian kid who comes from a poor family. "</p>
<p>I’m not sure which colleges “the colleges” represent, but in my experience, if there is a quota for blacks, most (of the 2000 or more four year) colleges must set it at one or two percent. Oh… maybe you mean top 50 colleges.</p>
<p>“I, for one, want the most competent surgeon operating on my child, no matter what their color.”</p>
<p>And I would not be surprised if your definition of “most competent”, and mine are different. I have no interest in changing your definition, nor in you having to “pay” for mine.</p>
<p>^I agree completely with floridadad.</p>
<p>Actually, a UCLA professor resigned over “holistic admissions” this when I arrived three years ago:
[UCLA</a> official resigns over racial admissions - Orange County Register](<a href=“http://articles.ocregister.com/2008-08-28/education/24716924_1_student-files-black-students-ucla-official]UCLA”>http://articles.ocregister.com/2008-08-28/education/24716924_1_student-files-black-students-ucla-official)</p>
<p>Here’s his report:
<a href=“http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2008/08/CUARSGrosecloseResignationReport.pdf[/url]”>http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2008/08/CUARSGrosecloseResignationReport.pdf</a></p>
<p>Its a good read for this discussion. Essentially, Vietnamese students are among the poorest groups applying into UCLA (poorer than Hispanics), yet because they are Asian, they aren’t given the same “preferential” treatment.</p>
<p>“I might be one of those, assuming the preference means being okay with a 2050 SAT vs a 2100 SAT, else being equal. I don’t know about “many”. If CC’s “cupcake” and RACE FAQ threads are a fair 'sample (probably not), people like myself are very “underepresented”. Nice for those who feel differently, and power to you! Bring it!”</p>
<p>The thing is, the preference isn’t from a small difference like 2050 vs 2100…its usually much more dramatic then that. From personal experience, the URM’s who got into the same schools as me at my high school had significantly lower stats…for example, 1850 vs 2270 for Berkeley at my hs (she is black).</p>
<p>If you are an URM, obviously you are going to support affirmative action. For many of us on the other end of the spectrum (Asian and to an extent, white) it seems puzzling to me that you can justify giving preference to people on race to combat discrimination …essentially you are discriminating the other way. </p>
<p>I understand society is not fair or perfect. Let’s be honest, there is discrimination in the workforce and because I am Asian, there will be a glass ceiling for me in certain professions that I cannot control. Affirmative action willingly and knowingly propagates this discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you’re essentially saying ‘if this thing benefits you, you’re going to support it; and if it doesn’t, you’re not.’ that seems pretty logical to me. Everyone has interests and no one wants to be ‘discriminated’ against, but some people are going to be.</p>
<p>the problem is essentially one of politics. Whether Vietnamese students are poorer than hispanic students or not, they’re still collectively labeled as Asian. And unfortunately, there’s no distinction between ‘rich asian’ and ‘poor asian.’ Even if something just like how poor someone is was taken into account, i’d still imagine that the poor asians would have much higher stats than their poor non-asian peers; So if you admitted by stats after that (which i’m sure the people with high stats would argue that you should), the asians might potentially still dominate a school. </p>
<p>The question is: why aren’t people educated at the rate of the percentage of populations they represent? why is california +35% hispanic, but the percentage of students at UCLA for hispanics is only 14%? And why is it that california is only 13% asian, but asians make up 35% of UCLA? shouldn’t these figure be reversed?</p>
<p>sources:
[University</a> of California, Los Angeles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“University of California, Los Angeles - Wikipedia”>University of California, Los Angeles - Wikipedia)
[California</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“California - Wikipedia”>California - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>so back to my whole point about politics: isn’t it bad, politically, for a public university whose purpose should be to serve the people of the state that it’s in, that it doesn’t educate the people that populate it in the same rates that they do, but in opposite rates?</p>
<p>And lastly, even if asians are poorer than hispanics, they’re education rate is still much higher. So even if you are born poor, if you’re asian, you’re much more likely of being educated than your NAM (non-asian minority) counterpart (why this is, i don’t know. We might conjecture that maybe it’s cultural):</p>
<p>source:
[Education</a> outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_outcomes_in_the_United_States_by_race_and_other_classifications]Education”>Achievement gaps in the United States - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>"If you are an URM, obviously you are going to support affirmative action. "</p>
<p>Not obvious to me at all. Most URM students do not seem to support AA on CC. And my kids are already in college, so I have no personal agenda. </p>
<p>My current agenda is with the URM students in my community, and hoping they graduate, and hopefully apply to college. Any college. You have nothing to fear from them. </p>
<p>When I look at the big picture, it just drives me a little batty that so many CC kids think URM teenagers are making out like bandits. We are talking about a handful of VERY lucky kids, who get to benefit from affirmative action.</p>
<p>I will note my URM daughter did not get into UCLA, although her SAT and GPA were above their average, and that’s as it should be. She had no adversity to balance her lack of “rigor”; we just valued her tiny-rigor less school over UC admissions. Same for son whose SAT’s where well above average for every UC he applied to, but still did not get in. His GPA was a problem and being URM didn’t seem to change that.Your peers were lucky I guess.</p>