<p>dude, you havent considered any of my arguments, if you had, you wouldn't have just made the same ignorant statement you did earlier...read my post on the other thread to see what i mean</p>
<p>that's interesting you say that also runningcircles, and everyone else out there listening, please read this to clarify your misconceptions...</p>
<p>the supreme court ruling that legalized affirmative action did so on the basis that institutions of higher education would use race as a factor in creating a diverse student body, not in justifying OPPRESSION, students of socioeconomically disadvantageous backgrounds are a unique group, but SO ARE people of differing cultural backgrounds...the goal of many schools is to have the racial composition that reflects that of the country in general...to say someone who has experienced racial prejudice but can afford a college education has nothing more to contribute than a white suburbanite is completely ignorant and false...</p>
<p>btw, in case anyone is wondering, i am white myself, but im defending minorities, because i have a dear friend who is black and whose father is an eye doctor</p>
<p>Dude, stop following me. Why did you ask about the subject? </p>
<p>I told you the truth. That's the way the ADCOMs think, not me. Also, looking at those minorities entered, many of them are of moderate means. That helps increase both poverty aps and minority aps. It's not impossible to get in being a minority of means, but that "edge" diminishes, and you are looked at as "upper class," not so much a minority.</p>
<p>(edited out by JEM) i think where we disagree is simply that you think being a minority automatically entails being of few resources, whereas i am simply arguing that being of few resources is a SECOND edge...when you're a minority and are dirt poor, you contribute to both kinds of diversity...is that fair...can we agree to agree on this point....</p>
<p>comment edited out by JEM -- No personal put-downs, please!</p>
<p>by the way runningcircles, if you want the opinion of another expert, just look back on this thread to the last post on page 2 and the first post on page 3, northstarmom is supposed to be an alumni interviewer or some kind of expert, so she should konw what she's talking about, then you'll see what im saying</p>
<p>I didn't say "minority" means fewer resources. The only thing I said was that minorities from modest means are more attractive and get in at a higher rates than minorities with money.</p>
<p>Good night! Tomorrow are the SAT IIs.</p>
<p>right...i agree, that's two edges as opposed to one, but dont u still agree, if wealth were a control, minorities get in at a higher rate than non-urm's?</p>
<p>Good God. Not the affirmative action debate again...</p>
<p>let the flaming begin (or rather, continue)</p>
<p>lol I havent even commented in months and I saw my name pop-up somewhre. The sheer basis of the matter is that AA make a school look good. I believe that a rich minority should have nothing to distinguish him from a rich white/asian. However, if you are poor then the story changes. Discrimination? Oh give me a break, that was over 40 years ago. Its over now, get over it. </p>
<p>-A poor latino</p>
<p>eyezonharvard, I wasn't debating... he just started arguing with me. I don't know why, I was just saying HOW adcoms think, not saying whether it was right or not.</p>
<p>Affirmative Action has been beaten to death. Let the dead rest in peace!</p>
<p>LOL. I know what you mean, eyez. He asked me in another forum if being a minority with means would take away the URM status. I said they would look at an upperclass minority more as a white applicant since there isn't a disadvantage. Anywho, IDC. I know that I was right.</p>
<p>Actually it doesn't. Colleges like to be able to say they have african americans. They never say how many they have from "poor" economic backgrounds.</p>
<p>thanks SEW, the people who disagree with us tend to be mostly angry white people or people who claim to be poor minorities, although if they're so disadvantaged, like dha, i dont know how they have a computer in their home to be roaming the internet like this...</p>
<p>Owning a computer is neither a sign of wealth or the lack-thereof.</p>
<p>it's a sign of means...how can you be impoverished if you have a pc and internet?</p>
<p>anyway, that's not what we're discussing anyway...we're clarifying that urms, even if they're of means, still have the urm edge...that is, a rich hispanic offers what a poor hispanic cant: another urm to add to the student body and someone who wont be draining the university's endowment</p>
<p>Draining the university's endowment? And what the hell do you have to offer? You're just another full-pay middle-class mediocre over-achiever. I dont even know your credentials, but your sheer lack of consideration and care for people who are so economically and socially unequall is appalling. God, you're so apathetic it's sickening. </p>
<p>Now concerning equal-opportunity... I read an article in this month's issue of the Atlantic and then again in Foreign Policy (for some reason there was a college thing on there) where they examined the true fate of being poor in college admissions. Unfortunately, we are still in the middle ages in respect to that. According to various research models conducted throughout, poor students hardly get any extra consideration for being poor. So a rich black kid and a poor black kid are judged on the same premise, the "discrimination" (which doesnt exist) they both have gone through; therefore, you can only guess which one is picked. In resume, the poster that said that they declare the number of enrolling minorities as opposed to those who are actually poor is right. They will never admit their true numbers because it hurts PR. From my research and experience at H this summer I can honestly say that even though individuals in the university do their best to try to help others of lower-incomes attend (like David Evans and the dear Rita Pandey), the frank truth is that they will most likely take a rich URM over a poor one, other things equal. Its sad, but its the truth. And when you get to lower level institutions (Rice, Hopkins, etc.) the Admit-Deny policy is instituted and poor kids really get screwed over.</p>
<p>wow, dha, despite my hatred for you, you really seem to understand what i'm saying...didnt mean to offend by my "draining endowment" comment, but at least someone on this board understands the reality that wealthy urm's are chosen over poor ones because they offer that valuable end-of-the-year statistic and can pay their own way</p>