<p>What do you think about Proposition 209. I'm writing a researcher paper for English on affirmative action, so I'm just curious.</p>
<p>I wouldn't ask about an issue with such legal, moral, and topical complexities on an open forum if you are planning on approaching the subject objectively.</p>
<p>i think prop 209 is pointless because people are still going to mention their race in their essays....so whats the point of hiding it from the admissions officer in the application?</p>
<p>@Ektaylor
I've already written it so it's not a big deal. </p>
<p>@donjuan
It has nothing to do with hiding your race. UC's don't consider your race in the application process.</p>
<p>lol, right... ;) </p>
<p>But how can they not consider it if an applicant mentions it in his or her essay? I seriously doubt that they dont consider it; it is definately considered if it is mentioned. The admissions counselor doesnt have to tell california how or why a decision was reached.</p>
<p>Yea, but as a result of Proposition 209, the percentage of Asians in the UC's shot up. So it was obviously a factor.</p>
<p>Prop 209 was truly an equalizer for higher education. Consider this scenario:
Race: Hispanic
GPA: 3.7 in the ghettos of Compton, CA
Hasn't taken any AP classes or honors classes.
SAT: 1600</p>
<p>From his socioeconomic background, he is very well the top one percent of his high school. But is this student really capable of handling the coursework of a top university. How do we know for sure, since he came from such a poorly performing area? There is no standard of comparison except for the SAT's which are just average. The only thing that pops up is his Compton, CA residency as well as his Hispanic heritage. Should these factors be the sole determinants of getting him in?? </p>
<p>Let's say that he did get in.
This is the student he replaced:
Race: asian
GPA 4.0
SAT: 2190</p>
<p>So, basically, this university decided they had too many asians in their school. Therefore, to balance things out, they chose a Hispanic student just because he was hispanic. And that's it. For the sake of diversity, the admissions officers threw out a potentially brilliant student because he was asian and not hispanic. Yeah, that is pretty racist. What merit does this Hispanic student have? Why does he deserve to get in to a school that he would just struggle to keep up with?? I understand that diversity is important but so is the concept of equality. No race or ethnicity should gain a preference. Furthermore, I also understand that minorities did get discriminated against in the past, but does that mean that a non-minority who has nothing to do with that should be denied fair treatment at the expense of the hispanic student?? In essence, we need to ask ourselves, do we need to give unequal treatment to minorities or equal treatment to everyone?</p>
<p>Yes, Prop 209 was a good thing in that it created a society that gives benefits to anyone who works hard.</p>
<p>However, in certain cases, when the stats of two people are the same(but different races) affirmative action should be used. So therefore, race should be the last thing on the list to be considered and not one of the first. My stance on this issue is that equality should always come before diversity, but at the same time diversity should be encouraged as well. So equality first and then maybe, diversity.</p>
<p>prop 209 may be some form of "equalizer," but you have to consider that AA still exists in california via applicant essay ;) (The UC's now use the "holistic approach" to bring in more minorities to their campuses--just another form of AA :))</p>
<p>Yea, but note the high Asian population today (41.6%) and the surge in the asian pop. at Berkeley after Prop 209 was passed in 98. This signifies that affirmative action has definitely been greatly reduced in significance.
Donjuan you make a good point, but affirmative action, for the most part, does not exist. It is illegal. Yes, the holistic approach might seem like a loophole, but this is limited because the race of the applicant is not revealed (unless of course it is in the essay itself). And even if the race was revealed in the essay, the admission people won't say "ahh, this is a black person, let's admit him!" Race or ethnicity, for the most part,has become minuscule in importance. So you can't really say that full blown AA still lingers.
Personally, I believe that AA should be used a bit more because I do believe there are many Hispanic, black, and other minorities that are more than capable of handling the academics as well as contribute to UC Berkeley in new ways.</p>
<p>jasonlee576,
You are totally missing the point. If someone comes from a city like Compton, East LA, ESO, ect, yet they obviously work really hard and get good grades in school, they should be able to be looked better upon than an applicant who is from the 'burbs and has a 2100 and a good GPA, because a student from a poorer community isn't going to have all the opportunities the applicant from a rich suburb.</p>
<p>Now, to say that AA should ONLY be used in situations where 2 applicants are equal is just stupid. That's EXACTLY what SHOULDN'T be happening. Saying one applicant should be excepted MERELY on the merits of race and nothing else is ridiculous.</p>
<p>What if the applicant from Compton happens to be Asian and the applicant from the suburbs happens to be black or Hispanic? The latter would still be chosen over the Asian.</p>
<p>Racial AA seems to assume that blacks and hispanics are automatically disadvantaged because of their race.</p>
<p>excepted? you mean accepted.
Well anyways, I respect your opinion, but in the end, you do realize that the kid from Compton or whatever is not going to get accepted. Socioeconomic backgrounds can only do so much, and clearly the kid from compton is not performing as well as the azn kid from the suburbs.</p>
<p>And your point about how race should not matter at all is absurd. I am not saying that race is the only criteria. I never said that. What I'm saying is that race should be at the very end of the list of the things to be looked at. Diversity is definitely a good thing, and when colleges can get diversity without being too unfair to the other applicants then they should do it. At some point, the colleges have to favor a minority applicant on the basis of his or her race if they want to create a diverse student body.
A school with only whites and asians says something about our society. It says that we don't like the other minorities and that there is something wrong with the education system for blacks and Hispanics.
And Nanday0, I've never heard of an asian person from Compton.LOL
Good point, but for the most part, there are more asians than blacks and Hispanics combined. Full AA is not practiced in the UC system or otherwise UC Berkeley would have a lot more Blacks and Hispanics.</p>
<p>It seems to me that if affirmative action is going to exist, it should be based on economic background. By that I mean that there should be some sort of relative scale on which high school achievement is measured. Such a scale should be based strictly on family income. So for example, kids' whose family makes over 250k a year should have ~4.3+ GPAs in order to get into Berkeley. But for kids' whose parents make less than say 20k, a 3.0 ought to be enough. These scales should be particularly applicable if the economic patterns have been stable for the entirety of the kids' lifetime. </p>
<p>Sadly, the US has for centuries been obsessed about racial differences and that makes it tough to imagine Americans calling for class-based affirmative action.</p>
<p>I agree about basing affirmative action upon socioeconomic background. Its easy to say that all it takes to make it in the world is hard work, but the issue is way more complicated than that. A child who grew up in a household which did not encourage scholastics or was in a low performing school district simply isnt going to have the resources to just rise above it. While some do, I would argue that this takes a much greater effort than the upper-middle class 4.0 student who had all the support he/she needed.</p>
<p>It is easy to take ones background for granted. Your parents education level, the way they act as role models, and even the way they speak all contribute to who you become later in life. Sure, some rise above these things, but they are few and far between compared to the large group of upper-middle class students with access to SAT resources, adequate textbooks, and funding for after school programs. </p>
<p>An economically based affirmative action program would address those who may be hard workers but simply did not have the support to achieve quite the same scores as middle class students. These disadvantaged groups do include people of all races, although, for a myriad of reasons, a disproportionate number of certain minority groups come from these disadvantaged backgrounds. Economic affirmative action would address all of those who need it instead of making broad generalizations that certain races are completely disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Thats an interesting idea that we so steeped in race based affirmative action that we cant see around our own biases. There is probably some truth in that.</p>
<p>(I would guess that the Hispanic student who rose above his background and probably did not have access to AP classes is just as hard working and capable as the Asian student who had access to greater resources and was therefore able to attain a higher SAT score)</p>
<p>(I would guess that the Hispanic student who rose above his background and probably did not have access to AP classes is just as hard working and capable as the Asian student who had access to greater resources and was therefore able to attain a higher SAT score)</p>
<p>Karabear,
First: you are comparing two extreme cases here (and I like how you insert Asian in there because its just so highly unlikely that whites or hispanics take prep courses). Obviously these cases do exist, but at the end of the day affirmative action would apply to ALL cases.</p>
<p>Second: It is inconclusive whether the Hispanic is more "capable" as the Asian student; you have no base for that. Similarly, it is inconclusive that the Asian student was less hard working than the Hispanic student. Please dont make absurd "guesses". </p>
<p>I grew up as a relatively poor asian kid and lived with a several minorities in shared housing. My parents sacrificed to give me and my siblings a good education and they instilled those values. I dont believe that I should be at a disadvantage as such because of what they did. </p>
<p>My point is that it is not the admission committee's right to stereotype certain races (like you just did). Now I agree with you that it should be based on socioeconomic bgrnd, but I just think it shows a lack of respect/knowledge for you to typecast asians and hispanics. It is just one thing that bugs me that people typecast asians as such. I agreed with your entire post until that last part in parentheses...just shows that you are too steeped up in race as well.</p>
<p>ummmm, I was referring specifically to this post:</p>
<p>"Prop 209 was truly an equalizer for higher education. Consider this scenario:
Race: Hispanic
GPA: 3.7 in the ghettos of Compton, CA
Hasn't taken any AP classes or honors classes.
SAT: 1600</p>
<p>From his socioeconomic background, he is very well the top one percent of his high school. But is this student really capable of handling the coursework of a top university. How do we know for sure, since he came from such a poorly performing area? There is no standard of comparison except for the SAT's which are just average. The only thing that pops up is his Compton, CA residency as well as his Hispanic heritage. Should these factors be the sole determinants of getting him in??</p>
<p>Let's say that he did get in.
This is the student he replaced:
Race: asian
GPA 4.0
SAT: 2190"</p>
<p>I also did not say that the Hispanic kid was more capable, only just as capable of doing well.</p>
<p>I was not making an assumption based upon race, only replying to jasonlee's scenario regarding a kid from Compton versus a kid from a middle class background. (which I guess is assumed since he did not think it was necessary to include the background of the second person)</p>
<p>I should have been more clear</p>
<p>The reason I assumed that AP classes are not available is because low income areas sometimes don't offer them because of low demand.</p>
<p>The way you are interpreting my post is contrary to my entire argument. I was arguing that it is economic background which must be overcome, not race. The person who can overcome these hurdles regardless of background has shown that he/she is very capable, regardless of possibly having a lower SAT score.</p>
<p>true. But then why mention race at all in your post? I read and understood your post, and if you read mine I mention that I agree with it in entirety, except for the last part. I understand now though that you were just responding to the original post. My apologies.</p>
<p>My intent was to stop threads like this which totally typecast asians as born in upper middle class and obsessed with studies.</p>
<p>Furthermore I disagree, and this is my opinion, that someone who overcomes economic hurdles is academically capable. (I assume you meant academically as Berkeley is an academic institution). Its (this is my opinion) really easy to take the SAT no prep just pay some attention in HS and get a score like an 1700-2000. I think anybody who remotely cares about their studies can do just that regardless of economic background. So AA should not be used. If you take this assumption to be true you will see that it is inconclusive to say that someone is more or less capable because of their economic status. </p>
<p>Now let me just close with saying that the reason i reference the SAT is because there is no excuse for students from any economic background to get a low GPA as respective school strength is an issue. That pretty much leaves the SAT. </p>
<p>Karabear1 I agree that AA should be used in socioeconomic context not race. But for the reasons provided above, I dont believe AA is fair. That is my opinion.</p>
<p>Honestly, the reason I mentioned race specifically was to refer back to the original quote. </p>
<p>However, the main issue that I am having is the oversimplification of the complexities of poverty. You mentioned that, although you were not wealthy, your parents were extremely supportive, hard working, and instilled positive values in you. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many people. </p>
<p>Poverty often occurs in cycles. A random child born into an unstable background is likely to follow the path of their parents because of social conditioning. Many (but definitely not all) people from impoverished backgrounds also come from unstable homes. If everyone has an equal chance of getting into a good school, then why do the majority of students in top colleges come from middle-class backgrounds? Many inner city schools do not provide an environment or resources conducive to learning. It becomes much more complicated for these students to simply pay attention and achieve the same test scores as others.</p>
<p>While I dont feel that economic background should be the first thing addressed in an application, I do feel that it should be taken into account. I would like to see hard working people from disadvantaged backgrounds be given a chance to break out of the cycle of poverty if they prove that they can work hard. I feel that state schools should make it their goal to serve a variety of people, not just those who attain the highest test scores. Berkeley is beginning to do this with their holistic approach, so they are starting on the right track in my opinion.</p>
<p>I do feel that society as a whole is better served if we actively work to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor. This might sometimes mean choosing a student with slightly lower test scores. We might just have to agree to disagree on this one since my views are admittedly pretty liberal.</p>
<p>As an added note, I was extremely intimidated when I first came to this school because I am a lowly transfer student who did not take honors classes, AP classes, or do well on my SATs in high school. Yet, after awhile I realized that there usually is no discernable difference between transfer students and traditional students. I think SAT scores and standardized testing in general is pretty overstated; but once again, this is just my own biased opinion.</p>
<p>If you were a transfer student you were likely to have a high GPA in CC or wherever you were before. From experience, I can say that getting a high GPA in such an environment is much harder than doing well on the SAT and that may explain why you are able to blend in so well. </p>
<p>The fact that my parents instilled in my values of education gives me an advantage over other applicants, but I still have to put in the effort whether my family was rich or poor. </p>
<p>And as for choosing applicants with "slightly" lower test scores I can agree with you;it does seem fair in context. But when you say slightly lower, it becomes about 200-300 points for URM's rihgt now. There is a significant difference between say a 2300 and a 2000 simply because of the way it is curved. </p>
<p>The real problem I have is that AA is too powerful. If some URM posts for a private school that practices AA, say Stanford adn they have the stock GPA (close to 4) and an SAT score just above 2100 everybody says good/excellent shot. </p>
<p>Lastly Karabear, you talk about hardworking ppl from lower class backgrounds. Well, I don't know how you can tell if they are hardworking or not...So a poor kid without a job on the application is more hard working than a person from a higher economic class working a few jobs and doing a lot of comm. service? Maybe, but its inconclusive again. You cannot just assume that poor ppl who have decent test scores are more hardworking than rich counterparts. </p>
<p>Now as for inner city schools and their resources I have to disagree to some extent. To get a test score good enough to be admitted here you honestly dont need to go to a good or even decent HS (SAT Material is covered in pretty much any HS). If you are smart enough to handle the workload here then you should be smart enough to obtain a prep book set (~60 bucks total/40 bucks used or perhaps free if you have friends or connections at school) and read through that. Thats what I did for my SAT; its almost like a cheat sheet i felt. Read the book, get a top score. Worked for all my SAT's. </p>
<p>Now where I agree with you is APs. Definitely people from inner city schools will have access to fewer AP's. But already, AP's are not a very big part of the application process, with many schools saying that they do not even consider the scores, only the rigor of courseload that it offers. Perhaps having students check a box saying my school did not offer more than 3 AP courses or something can omit that part from their app.</p>