<p>logosprinciple:</p>
<p>I used to think that way. But, to be honest, the minority students at my daughter's school are such incredibly strong applicants, that I've had to rethink that part of the equation. Don't fall into the trap of thinking about SAT scores as some kind of absolute measure. Does it really matter what the SAT scores are if that student is among the top 1% of all SAT scorers in that ethnic group?</p>
<p>I'm not a parent, but rather a grad student. But I'm hellishly opinionated, so you're getting my opinion:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As a former engineer, I was furious when a bunch of men told me that I "only" got into engin. school because I'm a woman. Nevermind that I was at the top of my class, had near-perfect SATs, and a slew of varsity letters - clearly, I just wasn't as qualified as the guys who had worse stats than me. </p></li>
<li><p>From that, I do really believe that the specter of AA is really the undoing of minorities and women in male-dominated fields. It's really hard to be taken seriously when you're "only in" because of the way you were born - true or not. I don't think that athletes are condescended to that way.... </p></li>
<li><p>Real effect? No one has ever been "taken over" me, although I am white. I seriously doubt that Harvard was comparing me and another person for exactly one spot and took the black kid. Problem is, parents and students see a minority/female/legacy candidate and automatically assume that said person was taken "over" their kid. Not really. If the college did not take the minority, hate to break it to y'all, but your kid is not #2 on the list. Your kid is probably #500 on the list for that spot. If a college accepts twenty minority students every year to increase diversity who would not have gotten in otherwise, I can guarantee that a thousand kids will think that they were pushed out of admission. Not true - only twenty of those kids were disfavoured in admissions. There is very little effect on the average applicant. If you didn't receive a waitlist, you weren't rejected in favour of a minority; you were rejected because you weren't good enough. The entire incoming class could have been rich white people, and you still would have gotten a thin envelope.</p></li>
<li><p>I honestly believe that I'm better off with "reverse discrimination" than I would if I were black or Hispanic. As a white woman, there are nominal effects to me (see above) for not being a URM. However, the social benefits (which really should be available to all) of being white are huge - the assumption of intelligence, of capability, of having earned the successes one enjoys.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>interesteddad,</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that an SAT or IQ score is the only way to measure brilliance--far from it. However, if someone only knew that a minority person was in the top 1% of the scorers in their ethnic group, they would think that they were smart "for a ______ person" since the standards are lowered for that group. Again, I think that it reinforces stereotypes and assumes a lower achievement level, when in fact that minority student might be in the top 1% of all scorers.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>My only complaint about AA is that it should not be merely race based but be based on a combination of race and socio-economic factors.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>From what I have seen observing 5 college app seasons, I do believe that many colleges do factor in race AND socio-economic factors. The minority kids who come from single parent homes of low income seem to get a big boost--I have seen minority kids from middle class, intact homes not get much (if any) discernable boost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm concerned at the very idea that students walk around thinking "Did that person have higher scores that I do? Does that person deserve to be here in the same way I do?" Revolutionary idea: What if we just walked around assuming everyone had an inherent value and inherent dignity such that nothing as silly and arbitrary as SATS or IQ had anything to do with it? What if we met each other every day as valuable people in our own right? </p>
<p>When I suggest your idea to my children, they are honestly puzzled that people <em>think</em> the way you suggest. I know that people do, but they don't <em>have</em> to. I don't have to teach that idea to my children; I don't have to model that value to them, and I have not. As a result, the very idea of assessing people for their "qualifications" or "deservedness" is just . . . odd to them. My son seems to be of the idea that, "Some of my friends got into Stanford, and some did not. Do I think that the ones who did are any less or more deserving or qualifed?? Why would I even attempt to use the metric of "got into Stanford" as a yardstick to measure my friends, or <em>anyone</em>? </p>
<p>He didn't just spring from my loins thinking that. He was <em>taught</em> it. It was modelled to him. And the children who go to college and think, "I wonder if that black student deserves to be here" -- well, they didn't spring into being thinking like that, either. When you <em>ask</em> these questions, you are suggesting that our children should see the world that way -- and I reject that idea, for myself <em>and</em> my children.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While AA was implemented to bring about a desirable result, lowering standards to admit (or hire) minorities serves to hurt them because most people will, consciously or uncon
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gosh, I really wanted to stay out of these AA rants, but..</p>
<p>First of all if a URM displaced anyone in the admissions process, it was another URM because this is the pool of applicants they are evaluated against.</p>
<p>What exactly constitutes being not as qualified? Are you simply talking about scores, becasue that is one criteria but certainly not the only. It is true that after you take into consideration, athletes, legacies, developmental admits, celebrities and/or their offspring, URMs, low income, and those that can full pay, there are very "few slots" slots remaining. </p>
<p>according to the college board the average SAT score by ethnicity (page 10) :</p>
<p>American Indian or Alaskan Native 489v 493 m = 982</p>
<p>Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 511v 580 m =1091</p>
<p>African American or Black 433v 431m = 862</p>
<p>Mexican or Mexican American 453v 463m = 916</p>
<p>Puerto Rican 460 v 457m = 917</p>
<p>Latin American, South American, Central American, or
Other Hispanic or Latino 463v 469m = 932</p>
<p>White 532v 536m = 1068</p>
<p>Other 495v 513 m = 1008</p>
<p>No Response 511v 525m = 1036</p>
<p>When colleges "look at the numbers" students are evaluated with in their ethnic group (asians evaluated against asians, blacks evaluated against blacks etc). </p>
<p>If you look at the figures is using this chart offered by the CollegeBoard (props to Stam for finiding the information)</p>
<p>Take for example SAT verbal scores between Asians & Whites. A 750 is 97th percentile for Asians but 98th percentile for Whites. HOWEVER, on average whites score 21 points better than Asians on the SAT verbal. What this means is that on average whites score better, but when we are looking at only top scorers - the ones the top schools are interested in - Asians outscore whites not only drastically in Math but also to a lesser extent the Verbal section as well.</p>
<p>One thing to consider is that achievement is certainly a factor; it's not just racial quotas. When equating scores to compare applicants of different ethnicities from an admissions standpoint, perhaps we should average the respective percentiles for gender with the respective percentiles for ethnicty. For example, using averages, an Asian male with an 800m/700v (1500) would end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. A Black male with a 730m/660v (1390) would also end up with a weighted percentile of 98m/94v. </p>
<p>This seems fairly accurate, as from looking around the results I think a 1500 Asian & a 1390 African American may end up comparable in the admissions game.</p>
<p>We tend to forget that what ever your thoughts are that nothing trumps the institutional mission, and as long as the college beleives that a variety of students from different walks of life is beneficial to helping them to achieve that mission I guess it is always going to be easier to hate the players than to hate the game.</p>
<p>According to the Journal on Blacks in Higher Education:</p>
<p>Nearly 19 out of every 20 black students who enter the highly competitive academic environment of Harvard, Princeton, Haverford, and Amherst go on to earn their diplomas. Other academically demanding colleges do very well, although not as well as these four. </p>
<p>Sixteen other highly competitive colleges and universities turn in black student graduation rates of 85 percent or more. They are Wellesley College, Williams College, Brown University, Davidson College, Colgate University, Duke University, Northwestern University, Swarthmore College, Wesleyan University, Yale University, Georgetown University, Stanford University, Washington University, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, and the University of Virginia</p>
<p>Frankly, I am not against affirmative action if it were economically oriented. Poor folks who don't have access to SAT review courses, top high schools and large numbers of APs, should be given minor preferences. I think of this as a flower blooming in the desert.</p>
<p>However, notice I focused on economic reasons. To give someone a preference based solely on the color of their skin or on their ethnicity is appalling to me and violates everything that I love about America. Why should a black or Hispanic child, who is the son or daughter of wealthy, successful parents be given any preference? I just don't get it.</p>
<p>I likewise don't understand reverse affirmative action which hurts many Asian folks. Why should there be a quota against them because Asians do well scholastically? I don't get this either.</p>
<p>I also don't get the reason why many colleges seem to weigh athletic extra curricular events more heavily than other events. Athletics seem to be a major factor in ivy school admission. I don't get that either.</p>
<p>TrinSF,</p>
<p>I'm certainly not arguing against the inherent dignity and worth of every person, and I don't see how my post could be construed to communicate that. Being admitted to a college doesn't mean that a person is more valuable, or intelligent, than someone who wasn't admitted. Every school has standards by which they evaluate those who apply, however. They don't randomly admit the first 500 applicants because of their value as human beings. If those standards are lowered for certain groups, like they are under AA, then the assumption will likely be that someone who is an URM is less qualified. You apparently think that AA accomplishes a valuable goal, and colleges presumably feel the same way. I simply addressed the effects of AA on reinforcing negative attitudes.</p>
<p>The simple truth (from my point of view) is that AA is a terrible, crude tool that we impose on our college admissions to level the playing field after substantial inequities in K-12 education have left our society with powerful differences in college preparation (and in education generally). The best answer would be to completely eliminate AA, but this can only be done in "fairness" if the K-12 effort to educate kids is somehow equalized. This step almost certainly requires a different, Federal-level funding mechanism, and much more controlling standards, and an end to the teacher's unions as they exist today. None of these things is on the horizon, in my view; they are just too hard to accomplish politically.</p>
<p>So AA cannot be eliminated because as crude as it is (with preferences for the sons of Black doctors, and hurdles for the sons of impoverished asian immigrants), it is the sytem we can all object to the least.</p>
<p>sybbie719,</p>
<p>I would think that some of the groups that you mentioned, such as athletes, are also thought to be less qualified because they were admitted under lower standards, or for different reasons, than the majority of the students.</p>
<p>I have seen poor kids from all racial and ethnic backgrounds whose families struggle day-to-day with incredible odds stacked against them, and if they overcome these to get to a level of community or 4 year college, they deserve all the help they can get.</p>
<p>Then I know very wealthy people from "URMS' who gloat because their children are being courted by schools with special invitations for the "opportunity" students. </p>
<p>Then there are a lot of hard-working students in between who obviously deserve to be treated fairly, but don't really need special perks or consideration to land where they should with decent financial aid.</p>
<p>There will always be resentment if group #2 gets what group #1 deserve, as it seems like resources need to be spent on the students who truly have tried to escape difficult situations. I was appalled when the Gates Foundation announced several years ago that they were putting out something like a billion dollars for minority-only scholarships, instead of designating the funds for all economically needy students. I remember writing them and receiving no response concerning the issue. Maybe they have changed their policies by now, but that is the kind of thing that is difficult to understand.</p>
<p>reasonabledad, you live up to your username! Excellent post.</p>
<p>Reasonabledad has a very reasonable post! The only comment I want to add has to do with the kids I've met at my son's college. Each of them, without exception and without regard for their ethnic or economic backgrounds, has struck me as just remarkable. They have had different experiences, with regard to academics and EC's, but there's just no way that any of them got in based on anything other than their individual excellence.</p>
<p>Eckie--if you think the comments you got were harsh and/or sarcastic, look again at the question you asked. you didn't ask if people agree with AA or not, essentially you asked "Are your principles hollow and meaningless?"</p>
<p>It's hard to seriously answer that. I'd have pretty little respect for myself if I thought the answer was Yes, wouldn't I?</p>
<p>I think the Gates Scholarships are for ALL students who qualify for the Pell Grant, no exceptions, so they must be low income to be considered. </p>
<p>Thanks to those who responded directly to my concerns regarding campus climates for African American students. </p>
<p>My D (who is a junior) will be taking the SAT this Saturday in an effort to increase her scores 700 verbal, 600 math, 670 writing. She will have 8 or 9 APs completed by graduation, two of which will be self studied, US and World History. She earned a 5 in US History (self studied) and a 4 in Statistics as a sophomore. She will be interviewing at Wellesley, Bryn Mawr and Mt. Holyoke during Spring Break. Miami of OH is her state pick. Her PSAT scores qualifies her for both National Achievement (African American students only) and for the National Merit Scholar. However, I would not expect D to do less than this given the opportunities she has had as a BAP (Black American Princess, or more correctly a Zimbabwean, Nigerian, African African, Native American Princess, the later is really how she sees herself). </p>
<p>And yes, I do think if a student who is first generation college of any race who has Ds credentials should be admitted "over" her, they have overcome great odds. As Chris Rock says, if D is competing for one spot against a white student of similar background, you had a 400 year head start on so it is now Ds turn. Yeah, it is funny but not really. </p>
<p>We just need more great colleges for all of our great children of all achievement levels. We also need to demand quality Prek - 12 education for all, America is facing massive brain drain in most rural and of urban American communities. Sorry, that is sort of off topic</p>
<p>Mizo, have you thought about looking at Dartmouth while you're in the northeast? My perception is that it's a very friendly, open environment, where kids from a variety of backgrounds thrive. It's not that far out of your way, and it's a fun place to visit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My S does not post on CC but some of the absolutely best students at his high school have been/are African-Americans. It is true that their parents are middle-class professionals.</p>
<p>I also am tired of these seemingly endless debates over the "fairness" of affirmative action policies. Please add my voice to those who say "Enough already." Isn't it obvious that "fairness" and "privilege" are not the same thing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D doesn't seem interested in Dartmouth when I mentioned. I will try again, I like what I have seen for their website and info sent to our home.</p>
<p>OP's original question was,"However, I'm curious about how parents would feel if their child got rejected their top choice university while a classmate with lesser credentials with a minority status as their only hook got accepted. While I know that there are always certain intangibles about students, the obvious conclusion most would reach in this situation would be affirmative action.</p>
<p>If you currently support affirmative action, would a situation such as this sway your view, when a program negatively impacts your own life?"</p>
<p>The intent, I think was to hear the opinions of those who have been PERSONALLY affected by it. All the discussion seem to forget or ignore the examples in which AA has hurt some one personally.</p>
<p>Yes, I have gone through it and although as a whole AA might be good, it does produce personal casualitites and hurt. What is frustrating is that people on either side don't care or don't seem understand the hurt it produces. People who haven't personally victims of crimes such as burgalary, rape, murder etc...., can't really 'feel' how the victim really feels. I see that in work place too. In order to fill the diversity quota, many URMs- including white females-get the jobs they don't deserve.</p>