<p>Point taken - but the flipside is how EVERYONE is aided (especially in an educational environment) through the experience of a widely diverse student body/workforce.</p>
<p>Don't make believe that schools are taking in students - ANY students - out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they believe it results in a better educational environment for everyone (and since the vast majority of student bodies are white, primarily of white students.)</p>
<p>Simba, in my son's case, he was waitlisted at a school for which he had better stats than some kids who were athletes. I feel that we just have to be philosophical about it -- kids get into schools for a variety of reasons, and that's why we have them apply to a wide variety.</p>
<p>FYI: From the Gates Website: "The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS), funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to provide outstanding African American, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian Pacific Islander Americans, and Hispanic American students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education, in all discipline areas and a graduate education for those students pursuing studies in mathematics, science, engineering, education, or library science. The goal of GMS is to promote academic excellence and to provide an opportunity for thousands of outstanding students with significant financial need to reach their fullest potential." </p>
<p>Whatever, AA exists at all levels. Too bad for the dirt poor rural whites I have had the privilege to work with in the past. I think Equal Opportunity is the key.</p>
<p>My advice to OP and other parents: NEVER Ever Compete head-on with an AA candidate (unless you are from one of the schools that sends few people every year). You will always get the short end. You cannot control the admission. From your school if an AA candidate is applying ED/EA, apply regular; if they are applying RD do EA/ED, but never ever head-on. There was study done about advantages of race at a top school in US. The data suggested that on an average African Americans had 230 point advantage, Hispanics 185 point advantage, legacy candidates had 160 point advantage and Asian Americans had a -50 point disadvantage (old SAT scale).</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is frustrating is that people on either side don't care or don't seem understand the hurt it produces.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've seen considerable evidence to the contrary, including on this forum and in this thread. </p>
<p>
[quote]
NEVER Ever Compete head-on with an AA candidate. You will always get the short end.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty hard advice to follow, I think--how can someone control who they are competing "head on" with, in admissions? Maybe in very selective majors or specific fields like oboe where you know they are admitting a handful, you'd have that situation (where a few people are competing for one or two spots). Even then, how do you know the other candidates, and whether they have any characteristics that would classify them for consideration under AA policies?</p>
<p>Now that you've edited I see I may misunderstand your meaning. You mean don't apply if you know the institution will only admit one person from your high school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's those "certain intangibles" that so many parents forget are critical in college admissions. I think this whole question is moot, because you will never know why your child has been denied. If this particular URM hadn't applied, it's probable that your child still wouldn't have been admitted.
I hear parents in my upper-middle class neighborhood complain a lot about "all the minorities getting in" instead of their own "more qualified" kids. For the most part, these parent's kids aren't that special. For all the griping I've heard about how the UCs, for instance, cater to the disadvantaged, I see my son's non-minority classmates getting honor's admits to the best UCs, as well as other wonderful schools all over the country. Where is all this anti-white bias? Where are all these undeserving minorities? I just don't see it.
So far, as acceptances roll in, our expensive private high school is doing just dandy. I'm amazed, actually, at how many great schools these kids are getting into. It really makes me appreciate the advantages we have had.
I think some form of AA is still very necessary in this country. We'll know when it's not because we will stop worrying about the black kid with a 100pt difference in SAT score getting in over a white kid. People will understand that there is a lot more to "qualified" than the numbers may indicate.</p>
<p>AA is a mindset. Some whites would argue that it takes opportunities from them and gives it to minorities. Minorities, however, feel that it does none of the sort. I as a minority do not see AA as an advantage. I will still have to work twice as hard as a white person to get to the same place and to be looked at the same way as a white person. No one can say my son or daughter did not get admitted to their top choice because of AA and nor can I say that I got accepted to my first choice because of AA. I worked just as hard if not harder than many of the white and minority students. I will reap what I sow just like any other person only it will be more sowing than the person that has more stepping stones than I. In college decisions it is not based on color alone or scores but on several other factors and it also depends on the person viewing it ;what do they think is important and special about an applicant. A white person has to make their application as memorable as a black person. When I filled out my app I wondered if they would look at my race closely and then I decided I would diminish that factor and make everything else stand out. A white person should not think that they have an advantage because they are white and neither should a minority feel that way about their color.</p>
<p>Somewhat repetively, the elite coed LAC's and all the Ivies practice AA for white mails. See the posts on the Kenyon dean of admissions.</p>
<p>Why have AA for grad school?</p>
<p>At publics it is to keep tax dollars coming. At privates I suppose it is to keep donations coming.</p>
<p>bonnitadee notes,"No one can say my son or daughter did not get admitted to their top choice because of AA and nor can I say that I got accepted to my first choice because of AA. I worked just as hard if not harder than many of the white and minority students."</p>
<p>Response: What you say is probably true;however, the same white applicant who works just as hard would have a harder time for admission to the top schools than you...period.</p>
<p>Frankly, I can understand AA if it were economically based. I can't understand why AA should give any preference based on skin color or ethnic heritage. I know of two kids who are children of successful lawyers who benefited from AA. Why? Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>The only way the anti-AA philosophy would make sense is if selective colleges fired their entire admissions staffs and simply admitted students based on their grades and test scores. Until that happens, and it won't, there will always be plenty of students rejected who had better academic credentials than some of the accepted students. I don't see why people get so worked up about the supposed injustice of an AA candidate taking the "place" of a white student with better academic credentials, when they don't experience similar indignation about the similar leg up given recruited athletes, or viola players, or alumni children. Elite colleges can build the classes they want, it's as simple as that, and what they want is diversity of all kinds.</p>
<p>I also think it's whiny beyond belief, given the historic and continuing massive advantages our culture bestows on white people.</p>
<p>Veteranmom notes,"I don't see why people get so worked up about the supposed injustice of an AA candidate taking the "place" of a white student with better academic credentials, when they don't experience similar indignation about the similar leg up given recruited athletes, or viola players, or alumni children."</p>
<p>Response: Your analogy is faulty in my opinion. AA applicants don't bring any more money to the university than that of any other student. IN fact, they might actually be costing the university money with scholarships. Athletics bring in a LOT of revenue and a LOT of publicity for the school. Musicians also bring in money with performances. Finally, although I am not a fan of preferences for alumni children, alumni do contribute money, and in some cases, a lot of money.</p>
<p>Some would argue that "legacy appointments" are affirmative action for rich white people. Just thought I'd throw that out there. I threw in "rich" because as I understand it your ""legacy" begins and possibly ends with the amount of money you've given back to the institution over the years. Your chances are greatly enhanced by how much $$$ you've ponied up. That's just what I've read. Would your child be any less angry if he were passed over for an underachieving legacy type?</p>
<p>Taxguy - you're wrong about the financial impact of athletics. 99% of the collegiate sports teams are a financial drain on the college - that's why so many have dropped sports and cut back in recent years. It is a publicity/prestige thing, but I doubt that having a winning tennis or water polo team actually translates into a lot of bang for the buck for most colleges.</p>
<p>Taxguy - </p>
<p>Virtually none of the admissions preferences brings $$ to the school - - not the athlete, or the oboe player, or the legacy (ALL legacy apps get a boost, not just those whoses parents contrib to the school). In fact, despite the admissions boost, recruited D3 athletes are not required to play their sport and recruited musicians are not required to perform (much less perform for $).</p>
<p>Personally, I don't know why parents from the tri-state area don't scream "foul" when kids from VT, KY, CO, ME, OR, MS and other under-representd states are admitted w/ stats that would cause NY/NJ/CT private sch students (including URMs) to slit their wrists.</p>
<p>Or why the parents of girls aren't screaming bloody murder. </p>
<p>So it's ok if, in an effort to achieve gender balance, Vassar gives your D's seat to a "less quallified" White boy or gives him a grant finaid where your D got loans - - but "no fair" if the seat and the grants go to a URM boy? Or is it only a problem if the seat goes to a URM girl?</p>
<p>Finally, if you exclude URM legacy, URM recruited athletes and URM males (gender balance) from a URM population that is no more than about 8% at most LACs, how many seats are you talking about?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Several years ago we had lots of debates about this. It would take more than that. You would have to ask parents to talk with, and read to their children, and to maintain stable homes with loving discipline. You would have to break the power of peer groups who encourage other students of their cultural group to drop out and disengage from school. You could put the best teachers in the world into some schools and you wouldn't come out with accomplished students - without going far beyond the school world to do so.
Case in point: I asked my kindergarten students to write a story today about their "no-good, horrible, terrible, very bad day." One wrote: My dad told my step-mom to shoot him and the police comed and took him to jail. (I have changed phonetic spellings to conventional spellings.) Our disadvantaged kids have so many challenges to overcome - and the fact that they don't always suceed very well does not mean that they had "subpar" teaching at school.</p>
<p>anxiousmom is so correct in her post. Until the home environments are changed, nothing academically is going to budge for so many students. Working in a city, I see so many families having large families, completely reliant on public support, and even though they have no apparent responsibilities besides their children, cannot take the time to even read to the children or go to the library, etc. The TV is on constantly with horrible content that the kids see. Not all of the families, but many of them.</p>
<p>It is primarily not the teachers' faults at these schools. I admire anyone who can work in a poor city or rural school. Plenty of kids from poor environments have made it up the ladder in the US when they and their families have motivation. And in fact teachers can vary in quality and this will not stop a motivated family or school. A lot of the schools are failing because of the students and their home environments, not the teachers at all. </p>
<p>As to AA, if a student is equally qualified, that is one scenario. But many schools (not the top schools that get first pick) take underprepared HS students for the sake of trying to diversify,and the students don't graduate. They would be better off with the traditional route of starting in community colleges and then transferring up to 4 year schools if able. However, part of AA is that the colleges and universities want the feel-good scenario of diverse admission stats, without foresight of what will happen to the students of any race who go to poor high schools and can't do 4 year college level work directly out of HS. This certainly also leads to hard feelings on the part of students who did not get in with better qualifications.</p>
<p>"I think some form of AA is still very necessary in this country. We'll know when it's not because we will stop worrying about the black kid with a 100pt difference in SAT score getting in over a white kid. People will understand that there is a lot more to "qualified" than the numbers may indicate."</p>
<p>People already understand that there is a lot more to "qualified" than the numbers may indicate. They understand this perfectly when the kid with the lower numbers is as white as their own kid. No problem. They already know that in the world of elite college admissions, scores and grades were NEVER the be-all and end-all, even when the student population was all-male, lily-white and protestant. The numbers are only all-important when they belong to a URM applicant. Then they become an issue of law suits, congressional hearings and Presidential debates. I believe that this discrepancy of perspective distills down to a single fact about race in this country: A white person is believed to be inherently valuable, and is seen as an individual in his own right. A black person is seen as a "social liability" who must prove that he is of value, and must do extraordinary things to merit the status of "individual".</p>
<p>If SAT scores are used because they are a good indicator of college performance (freshman year GPA + difficulty of major in upper years), then is it wrong to give girls a boost in SAT scores, because their scores underpredict their performance, while boys' SAT scores overpredict their performance? </p>
<p>If grades underpredict the college performance of African-Americans, then why should they be evaluated the same way as an Asian student's grades? If the whole point of analyzing SATs and GPAs is to determine who will succeed (intangibles - essays, recs, ECs - having other purposes), then why would they all be equated?</p>