<p>It's not fair to give other people advantages just because they're a certain race. It's because society puts so much emphasis on race that we have problems with racism. Down to the core we're all people, if there's a lack of a certain race on some campus, they merely didn't have what it takes to get in.</p>
<p>Now, if people support affirmative action because it gives races who've grown up in poor circumstances a fair advantage, think of it this way. Poor asian guy who grows up in a poor community, goes to high school and gets straight A's. Then a black guy who's rich and goes to an expensive private school where he also gets straight A's. Would it truly be fair if the black guy was chosen over the Asian guy just because of race?</p>
<p>If they want to give advantages to people who are poor, that's fine. But when it encompasses a whole race with different people who all have different circumstances, it just isn't fair.</p>
<p>agreed, there are flaws. What you overlook is that in the grand scheme of things, statistically, those examples you cited are outlying and uncommon. Private schools can use race in light of the other things the app reveals about your family background. Obviously, the quota system doesn't work in this regard. The same way colleges have to make the assertion "okay, 90% (or whatever number) of students with x SAT score and x gpa do well at our school, so there is a high enough probability that they'll do well here" they can also say "okay, 90% of the blacks who apply have had to deal with more crapola in their education to get where they are today.. this fact needs to be addressed in our admissions process, and the only viable way to ensure that it is addressed would be to assume that this could be applied to all black applicants." Obviously, that other 10% are getting an unfairly easy deal, but there are many, many other far greater flaws in government systems.</p>
<p>To be sure, there are rich black people at my school (its an inner-city private school), but they're outnumbered 30 to 1 by rich whites, even considering the fact that there are about 3 times as many whites as blacks. </p>
<p>sorry that i carry on and on, but seeing how this is a college admissions forum, and people of all races are on it, i don't think its going to hurt anyone</p>
<p>Well, yeah, but you have to take those outlying and uncommon cases seriously. This is why they banned prayer in school even though most Americans are religious. Because it's unfair to atheism.</p>
<p>I see your point about this issue, but as a non-URM this idea doesn't sit well with me in the first place. I just don't think in a society where everyone is supposed to be equal that it's fair to "even out the playing field"</p>
<p>And besides, most of those URMs that benefit from Affirmative Action (at least at the more prestigious schools) are rich ones. As I said before, giving an advantage to a student based on hardships is good. Giving it to them just because they're a certain race, that's just unfair.</p>
<p>"I just don't think in a society where everyone is supposed to be equal that it's fair to "even out the playing field"- but society isn't equal and that's why we have affirmative action. Diversity is important in a college setting. The Supreme Court did not outright ban racial considerations in the case of Bakke vs Regents of the University of California (as well as the more recent Michigan case) for a reason. It was the people of California who did (no suprise considering that the URM are underrepresented in the polls as well). The UCs was used as an example in the Michigan case as a system that successfully maintained most of its diversity despite Prop 209, but the trends are showing a constant decline. That's why the UC took up the measure of comprehensive review, but the trend still continues and the UCs are looking for other measures to reverse the trend.</p>
<p>Religion is a completely different factor and is a horrible analysis: Separation of church and state, period.</p>
<p>You don't know the extent and effect of being a true underrepresented minority in society unless you actually are one. AA in fact actually helped female caucasians more than minorities in general, and take the experiences of the conservative leaning Justice O'Connor as an example. She graduated from Stanford Law school and when she applied to a firm, she was only offered a secretarial position. Because she was a woman. That's why it was no suprise that this conservative swing voter voted to uphold racial considerations in the Michigan case.</p>
<p>No society is not fair today. You have the opportunity to attend a school and have the knowledge about what it takes to get into a college. You have more symbolic wealth via knowledge than the URM's on top of financial capital. You are not judged, explicitly or implicitly, in the job market based on the color of your skin. Volunteering at elementary schools in Compton, I have seen first-hand the effects that the deterioration of a society has on individuals in school- from neglect in funding, from neglect of concern by society overall. The frustration expressed and the oppression observed by these individuals are depressing in this richest nation in the world.</p>
<p>(sorry bout the 3 posts, I kept getting interrupted while writing)</p>
<p>OP, I agree with everyone, UCs are matches while the other two are reaches.</p>
<p>Jyancy: wouldnt it have been nice if Clarence Thomas, who only got in to Yale law because of their affirmative action, had similar considerations?</p>
<p>furthermore, in response to the earlier posts Coolman25, the religion thing is totally off topic, it has nothing to do with protecting atheists and everything to do with preventing congress from making a law regarding the establishment of a religion, totally different concepts.
Anyways, I see your point in " I just don't think in a society where everyone is supposed to be equal that it's fair to "even out the playing field"... right, because as Dr. King dreamt of a world where his children were not judged on the color of their skin, but the content of their character."...
the important thing to remember here, is that colleges arent making the judgment based on skin color, theyre making the judgment on character.. its just that, today, statistically, as i illustrated earlier, race is a huge component in the formation of a person's character. Blacks who excel when by and large the cultural expectancy is for them not to excel (as is certainly the case with blacks, perhaps less with asians) certainly can be said to have higher character than whites who get the same grades even though the cultural expectancy was for them to do better, and that they had better resources to boot. </p>
<p>/boy it looks like we have an honest to god discussion going on here</p>
<p>it seems to me like many people here are misunderstanding the true point of affirmative action. the basic concept rests on the fact that there are immeasurable inequalities between different races in society meaning, for example, that the average black man's salary is significantly less than the average white man's salary. where it is assumed that financial success in life rests largely on the quality of college education one receives, to give, per this example, blacks an advantage in the college entrance process is an attempt to set new societal trends. even if a black kid is less qualified than another white applicant, according to the principle behind affirmative action the black kid could get above the white kid in so he can rise financially in society. eventually the goal is that enough URMs will have benefited from affirmative action that there will no longer exist poverty trends according to race. the end.</p>