<p>
Yes, they do, quite frequently.</p>
<p>JP_Omnipotence:
ignorance. has any one ever been enslaved because they weren’t handsome?
has their ever been systematic discrimination against people who weren’t considered beautiful? have people below average height been sent to concentration camps? the answer is no to all of these.</p>
<p>this is an incredibly stupid argument to make. you can’t compare being handsome to being a particular ethnicity; it’s so absurd i honestly can’t even articulate why it’s absurd. being tall, handsome, etc. is relative to those around you. for example, if you are 6’ tall and are in the US you are considered average height, but, if you go to Japan, you would be considered a giant. with race, you are always a member of your race wherever you go. </p>
<p>
there is no point in continuing this discussion if your’re going to resort to make these foolish arguments and comparisons.</p>
<p>
the last line, “I’m sure an exceptionally ugly asian person has a much harder time with the law than a black person,” is just foolish.</p>
<p>
so what? your best friend is black so that means you know everything there is to know about black people?</p>
<p>anyways, this is contradictory to what you’ve been saying, “that racial diversity does not matter.” “All this has made me aware of is how racial diversity does not matter, as their race has a very minimal affect on who they are. They are wonderful people whose qualities are virtually independent of their skin color.” how would you have come to this realization had there been little to no racial diversity in your school/neighborhood? you wouldn’t have been that’s how. the reason why colleges find racial diversity to be valuable is because it helps people of different races come to different understandings about each other, like yours: “They are wonderful people whose qualities are virtually independent of their skin color.” the only way people can learn the lesson you have learned is through direct interaction with other races.</p>
<p>
things that affect you the most in life are family background, socioeconomic class, and race. i think it’s pretty hard to argue that being an orphan is better than being overweight person. i think it’s pretty hard to argue that being poor is better than being ugly. i think it’s pretty hard to argue that it’s better to have to deal with all predjudices towards any minority than being socially inept.</p>
<p>also, if an individual feels that such things have influenced their lives more than three factors i listed, then they have the opportunity to discuss it in their essay.</p>
<p>
awful argument… “fat kids…beaten up?” “cruel looking faces..random searches?” dude…? wow…</p>
<p>
oh ok… so being obese is like being sent to a concentration camp and losing almost all of your belongings? hmmm… maybe it’s more like being enslaved and considered “property”?</p>
<p>
this is stupid. all of those things don’t affect your life as much as your family background, race, and socio-economic class. most of the things you listed, like not having friends, could be remedied if the kid was filthy rich.</p>
<p>if for some reason it did significantly influence the kid’s life he could write about it in his essay. besides this sort of kid typically doesn’t even have trouble excelling in school. ivy league schools aren’t exactly known for having the most social, good looking, athletic, etc. kids.</p>
<p>
you’re done.</p>
<p>
you’re done. if you want to have an actual discussion, please stop making stupid arguments.</p>
<p>Ok, so i guess colleges should seek diversity in “beautifulness?” according to JP. </p>
<p>Which i’m guessing means colleges should seek hotter people in admissions (which might offer a nice change in scenery)</p>
<p>Your hyperbole rests on the assumption that race has little to no impact on somebody’s life. Are you willing to make that claim?</p>
<p>I think his hyperbole rests more on the assumption that race has no more impact on somebody’s life than does how attractive they are, how smart they are, how tall they are, etc. This argument seems to make sense to me. How many different ways could I have turned out, had I been shorter, darker haired, higher cheekboned, smarter, dumber, a different race? But I could be completely ignoring some other factor which renders his/her (?) argument useless. I simply don’t know.</p>
<p>i’m sorry guys for making a seemingly racist comment. I am not a racist in the social standard (b/c I would argue that everyone is a racist to some degree). I read my post over, and I was like ‘oh shoot,’ It is a juicy topic, no? He was raised in a Latino community in California (Stanford picks 40%-ish from CA). The admissions probably knew the place very well, and thought that he student took advantage of all the things the community had to offer. BUT, would an 2nd gen Asian kid get accepted to Stanford with 1700 SAT even with all those leadership positions?</p>
<p>And I don’t think I was being racist just by the comment. I wasn’t implying anything negative. To be blunt, I was saying he got an advantage because he is a Hispanic, an under represented ethnicity, aka minority – which is a true statement. Some wording has more negative connotation than others.</p>
<p>And all yall debaters better stop doing line-by-lines. Make your posts enjoyable to read, and breath a little. (I hate those quick double in-take of air.)</p>
<p>
you are. you can only either be male or female, so by your logic, since there aren’t that many outcomes, one’s gender is insignificant and has no more impact than hair color on one’s life. seeing that you’re a girl would you agree with the statement that you life would not have been much different had you been born a guy?</p>
<p>
well i’m not really debating. i feel more like i’m leading some kind of reflection at a diversity seminar…</p>
<p>Being the starter of this thread I think the posts have deviated from the main topic. Personally I think it is ridiculous to assume that AA allows blacks or Latinos with low grades to get into the Ivy’s. If this were true there would be more of these ethnic groups on Campus: roughly less than 12 percent currently in the Ivy’s; two groups make up 27 percent of population.</p>
<p>“you’re done. if you want to have an actual discussion, please stop making stupid arguments.”</p>
<p>Newjack, you have a manner of speaking which is pretty disrespectful. Frankly, I don’t think your arguments are more rigorous than the others on this thread, but that is beside the point. Rude interjections like “you’re done” don’t add anything to your argument any more than swearing would. I realize part of the reason you are prone to do this is because you are a kid, but keep this in mind the next time you have a heated discussion over something.</p>
<p>and studies have been done on the benefits of physical beauty/handsomeness in all aspects of life…so don’t be so quick to criticize.</p>
<p>The advantages of being ugly vs beautiful are irreparable. Its not the place of society to correct them. </p>
<p>And I’m sure that if a college found that admitting a spectrum of beauty reflective of the general population was the best thing for the school, they would, but it isn’t, so its irrelevant.</p>
<p>
so do you. is this, “I realize part of the reason you are prone to do this is because you are a kid,” respectful?</p>
<p>i really don’t feel i was being disrespectful to any one. the conversation was moving out of the realm of being meaningful to being filled with poor hyperbolic examples, illogical conclusions, etc.</p>
<p>saying, “you’re done,” is just an easier way of letting someone know that you know they’re just BS’ing/arguing for the sake of arguing. i’m not going to waste my time arguing about stupid things; this is a serious topic and people should only be making serious arguments.</p>
<p>
hmmm… i’m not sure i’m going to buy into this, since i never said that my arguments were more rigorous than anyone else’s. i have, however, said that some people on here have been ruining this discussion by making poor, misinformed, irrational arguments.</p>
<p>Yes, I do think my life would be very different if I’d been a guy. I wouldn’t attend the school I do now, my brain chemistry would be completely different, I’d be named Jackson, etc. And you ignored every other variable I listed.
My argument is that race affects one’s life in any number of ways, but so does gender, health, beauty, weight, speech impediment, socioeconomic bakcground; who are we to say how much each factor affects us? affects someone else? I think it’s presumptive to make the argument the race affects a person above all else.
If we are going to compensate for descrimination based on race, why not descrimination based on gender, beauty, weight? Don’t you think there are brilliant kids who encounter prejudices because they have a speech impediment, or speak differently having grown up in a poor neighborhood? These are realities, not hyperboles.</p>
<p>
that’s because none of the other ones were as important. if you were obese, ugly, etc. you’d still be able to go to the same school, your brain chemistry would be the same, your name would still be the same, etc.</p>
<p>
i am not saying that. i have been saying that the four most important factors are family background, socioeconomic class, gender, and race. <em>ammended</em></p>
<p>
colleges already take gender into consideration; hence, the “check your gender” part of the application. </p>
<p>beauty and weight are irrelevant in most cases because it is not clear how those two affect an individual’s life. a poor obese person has a totally different life experience as an obese person than a rich obese person. an obese person who came from a family of obese people has a totally different life experience as an obese person than someone who came from a family in which he or she was the only obese person. an Asian obese person has a totally different life experience as an obese person than an African American obese person.</p>
<p>
bottom line is if the kid writes an essay about how having a speech impediment affected his life then colleges will consider it.</p>
<p>colleges can’t make a giant list of all of the things that could potentially influence a person’s life; that’d wouldn’t be practical. however, there are some things like your family background, gender, socioeconomic class, and race that clearly influence your life and that’s why colleges ask questions about these things. they also ask about these things because they’re things that everybody has. very few people have speech impediments so what makes you think it’d be practical to have a place where applicants check off whether or not they have one?</p>
<p>EDIT:
important factors = race, gender, family background, and socioeconomic class. i forgot to include gender in earlier posts.</p>
<p>We used to play Dinuba in football I think. But they are division 4 and we are division 2 now, so that stopped pretty quickly. I’m happy he got in though, I can only hope I’ll be able to say the same at either Harvard or Stanford.</p>
<p>You make a good argument. I’m convinced. But wouldn’t it be grand if there wasn’t any descrimination, and nothing to compensate for? Shall we end this board with that goal in mind?</p>
<p>
that’s not reality though. in our world, adequate diversity does not naturally occur due to the actions of individuals/groups of people in the past and in the present. </p>
<p>the only way for a school to create an adequately racially diverse student body is through considering the race of the applicants, which is what Affirmative Action really means today. </p>
<p>honestly, i don’t really see such a policy actually going away, since our country is VERY diverse. if anything, i would bet that Affirmative Action will be renamed so that it appears to be less controversial.</p>
<p>do we all agree on this? there is a correlation (w/ obvious exceptions) between academic achievement and race. more harshly put… it is safe to assume that <em>blah</em> will have a higher GPA than <em>blah</em> because one is <em>blah</em> and one is <em>blah</em> I don’t know if this is something everyone knows is true that no ones wants to admit, or just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Can we all agree on an ideal world? The crux of JP_Omnipotence’s argument is very sensible: there are many things that affect applicants’ lives (but not their potential to succeed in college) which are beyond the applicant’s control; ideally colleges should try to cancel out these factors for fairness’ sake. An ideal world would be one in which all of these things were accounted for: every dropped test mark due to unnaturally sweaty palms would be added back in much the same way that every club a low income student was prevented from attending due to financial constraints would be. Of course, this is a very difficult thing to do. If that low income student could join the club, would he become its president or its secretary? Would the sweaty handed dude get the question right? Might his sweaty hands somehow have prevented him from doing something completely unexpected - like win the Boston marathon? Which clubs / questions are we even talking about here? But if this ideal were achieved, we would have both a fairly chosen and suitably diverse student body (as everyone on this board will agree that the color of one’s skin does not affect his or her ability to succeed in college). Everyone’s happy.</p>
<p>Of course, admissions people have very limited resources. Newjack’s position is one of necessary compromise. Since schools have records of students’ race, but not of their palm sweat, they make judgments accordingly. It makes sense.</p>
<p>That said, I think Newjack makes too many compromises - there is nothing inherently limiting about racial perception, it is just another of many factors beyond the applicant’s control that can hurt their application indirectly. Racism can be overcome, and for many students this is easier than other factors would be to rise above (e.g. a facial disfigurement). I think, rather than eliminating AA, we should expand it to account for more factors than race. We might be a long way off palm sweat, but colleges should at least treat family income the exact same way they do race. They have the data. </p>
<p>The largest obstacle to this ideal-er world at the moment is the largely incorrect perception that college admissions officers are guarding country clubs. The fairness of schools is judged too much on their outcomes - the percentage of x race in a graduating class - rather than their processes, which is the area in which fairness is actually pertinent. To solve this, I think that colleges should try to make their admissions process as transparent as possible, so that the media can no longer complain that x percentage is unfair, as the process that led to that percentage is clearly just. Stop the problem at its source says i. The truth never hurt anyone – on balance. </p>
<p>Also, I think that admissions officers are doing a better job than most AA debaters give them credit for. My ‘ideal world’ is just one of ‘holistic admissions’, two words in the first sentence of most colleges’ admissions websites.</p>
<p>To clarify, my ‘ideal world’ is actually my ‘ideal admissions process’, which ironically depends on the world being un-ideal.</p>
<p>Maybe JP needs to double-check his analogies, and Newjack needs to stop using ad-hominem attacks. If you can’t talk about a controversial subject without losing your cool, you probably are not helping very much in resolving it.</p>