<p>and again....not accurate</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For example, a white or asian kid from a suburb or exurb (in oc, lol) gets around lets say 1400 (old sat) and 3.5 gpa. Would he have a shot at gettin in at ucla or berkeley? However, turn it around where a minority student from an underprivelaged environment receives lets say the same or even lower gpa and sat score. He would definitely have a shot because his performance within the "context of his underprivelaged" background would make it seem as if he did an amazing job. The white or asian kid would be losing out because he wouldn't have the opportunity to go to a school like the minority student, hence affirmative action redistributes opportunity.</p>
<p>As for after school programs redistributing opportunity rather than wealth, that was a play on words against those who equate wealth with opportunity, more so than to make a strong argument. </p>
<p>On what grounds, do your "liberal-hating" views support affirmative action? And no, I am all for after school programs and such. I am even for federal spending for education to make up for the "shoddy quality" of certain public schools (even though i believe local mismanagement is largely at fault) out of the fact that those areas have a smaller income base to spend on education.</p>
<p>As for black people being better because of cultural reasons? I thought that was a satirical comment, but if not, let me just say this: Yes, Africans (and not for nutritional reasons) are on average one of the shortest "races," if not the shortest. The reason that African-Americans are so tall is that most of them were brought from West Africa, which excluding the famous pygmy tribe, have very, very tall people. It's like if all the white people in America were to be descended from Scandinavia. Then there's slavery: Four hundred years of buying and selling people (yes, it was very horrible) on the basis of how strong and athletic they were might tend to "select" the most athletic. By the way, basketball and football are two sports, where raw athletic ability is more much important than let's say baseball.</p>
<p>Reachin4thestars: I believe most universities are looking for (after GPA and scores) people who have maximized their potential by making use of all available resources and opportunities. Example, one kid has few opportunities but seizes all of them, the second kid has considerably more opportunities but only takes advantage of a few (equal to the first kids opportunities). I think the school would accept the first kid because he is more likely to be ambitous and reach his potential. This is with all other things being equal. Thoughts??</p>
<p>makes sense to me</p>
<p>I agree Sweetny (lol) and I bet a lot of ppl would agree to what you just said (in principle).</p>
<p>However, in practice it's a lot different. It's very subjective. For example, at what point does an underprivelaged background no longer explain (or excuse) a weaker academic performance. And how exactly does someone quantify a person's underprivelaged background?</p>
<p>Have you read the admissions process for UCSD? They go buy a points system where all you have to do is mention "death in the family" and then you get awarded points or "single parent" and then you automatically get points. Of course, this is the exact same concept, except it's even better --it's all quantified and transparent!. However, I think a lot of ppl would have problems with this.</p>
<p>While I think these types of iniatives are noble in purpose, I belive its application is ultimately flawed. How exactly do you quantify a death in the family? Is it worth 50 SAT points, perhaps 200? </p>
<p>I believe in the old fashioned way. Measure every student by the same
standard and support them financially (idk exactly, but i.e. after school programs, free sat courses at school, grants to poor schools). Good students will excel no matter the environment in which they are in as long as they have a path in which they could take.</p>