|By Theoneandonly (Theoneandonly) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
Harvard admits A LOT of minorities based on affirmative action....
A really dumb girl at my school, with no major extracurriculars, low grades (not in top ten percent), and low SATs (in twelve hundreds)....was admitted.
Our valedictorian with the highest GPA ive ever seen, great extracurriculars (continual involvement in all for four or more years), great leadership, and great SATs (like 1560) was not even wait listed...neither was our second, third, nor fourth person at our high school.
What has the admission process come to. Being politically correct is hindering the goals of the white man's future.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
|By Caramelkisses06 (Caramelkisses06) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 04:15 pm: Edit|
How does that one "really dumb girl" translate into their admitting "A LOT of minorities based on affirmative action"? So far you've given me one really dumb girl ... what about the thousands of others? Tell me their stats and then maybe your post will become slightly less pointless.
|By Caliplaya03 (Caliplaya03) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit|
Ya that post really needs to be deleted. LOL..."the goals of the white man's future". The minority girl probably had something foing for her. She was probably interesting compared to ur val. She probably had a life... Ya your post is really ignorant come back when you know what your talking about.
|By Collegeguy (Collegeguy) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit|
I agree with everyone who responded.
|By U2tustp830 (U2tustp830) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:21 am: Edit|
Whoever wrote this post is freaking edited by moderator
Why am I even replying to this?
Please don't use that "r" word in that way on College Confidential. It is an insult to the developmentally disabled.
|By Ambitiousyokel (Ambitiousyokel) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit|
But U2tetc's still right. And these "let's blame affirmative action instead of admitting that we had uninspired essays, etc." threads are irritating me.
|By Mjs4n6 (Mjs4n6) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit|
O MY GOODNESS!!!
to the person that wrote that post:
You are the most ignorant jerk I have ever witnessed post anything on this site. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are simply bitter that a minority student got in above the valedictorian or whatever. YOU HAVE PISSED ME OFF. how ignorant must you be you. . . ARGHHHHH!!!! why am I stressing out over this you are such an ignorant fool. HOW INSENSITIVE!! ARGHHH!!!! I AM SO ANGRY. Okay I have cooled down. You have have no idea of what you speak. Minorities have had to make GREAT STRIDES toward our advancement in education. It was only four decades ago that civil rights were LEGALLY GAINED FOR ALL!!! For you to even talk about hindering the "white man's future" just screams "I AM AN INGNORANT FOOL WHO KNOWS NOTHING BUT HIS EXTREMELY SHELTERED PAMPERED LIFE. GOOD BYE!! I AM PISSED ARGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|By Thenamek (Thenamek) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit|
When I first read this post, I was incensed - but, confound it, everybody else has already taken the good responses!!! Ah, just kidding - well done guys, except for the original poster, who is a monumental TOOL.
|By Treyy685 (Treyy685) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit|
while i do not agree with theoneandonly's ignorant statement, "Being politically correct is hindering the goals of the white man's future," the whole issue with race does play a large part in college admissions. there are indeed many underqualified students at schools like harvard who, with mediocre/decent grades and scores (in comparison to truly amazing and deserving students), are chosen for acceptance over other more qualitified applicants because of their races. i do not support affirmative action or whatever you choose to call it (mainly because it only benefits certain groups of minorities), but i also do not want to promote the well being of such people as theoneandonly who seem to encourage the idea of white supremacy. i think the main thing is to accept that certain minority groups do have advantages, and if you are reading this and you are a minority who believes he/she honesty deserves to be where he/she is, then fine, good for you. in the admissions process as a whole, however, it isn't always this case.
|By Ambitiousyokel (Ambitiousyokel) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
"The white man's future"...
This white man's future is in having to apologize for like theoneandonly. We aren't all like him/her, I promise.
|By Bones (Bones) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:58 am: Edit|
Actually, "Theoneandonly" is correct. All of the universities are basing admission too many times on the race/gender of the applicant. That is also discrimination.
Here is how it usually breaks down:
#1 admit - Minority Female
#2 admit - Minority Male
#3 admit - White Female
#4 admit - White Male
Is it fair to white males to be 4th? I think institutions should think more about whether a person is QUALIFIED to be admitted, rather than hustling them in just to make their 'quota'.
It is now becoming so popular to scream discrimination that now, that there is REVERSE discrimination towards white people. Sorry, I don't buy into the "White people have more chances" story. Why do I not believe that? Because I was born a white male to a very poor family who's father died at a young age and had to work early in life rather than being able to go off to university like all my pals.
I busted my ass to get where I am now, and am still busting it working towards a doctoral degree. "Minorities" should be able to do the same without special help.
|By Treyy685 (Treyy685) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit|
no offense, but i don't like hearing all this stuff about how it is soo hard for a white person (according to you, it's the hardest for white males) to get into college. when my grade was applying to college, they were all saying stupid things like, "i'm white. i'm not going to get into college." that's such baloney. i honestly think asians have the most difficulty in getting into a good college. there are so many who are smart, with almst perfect scores, and work hard, but since they are being compared among the other extremely competitive and qualified asian applicants, their chances of admittance are not that high. when people say minorites, i hope they are no longer including asians because affirmative action DOES NOT apply to asians. if anything, i think white people have a [slightly] easier time getting into college. i agree completely, though, that college admissions should not consider race as a factor when reviewing applicants.
|By Markudel2003 (Markudel2003) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit|
PLEASE READ: THE SHAPE OF THE RIVER by DEREK BOK, former Harvard U President.
Then post on this thread.
|By Maggie9000 (Maggie9000) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit|
Theoneandonly: If someone with bad grades, scores and ecs canb be admitted to Harvard- WHY DOES HARVARD REJECT MINORITIES ALL THE TIME! Maybe you should consider that there is something about this girl that you don't know. Maybe she had faced many more challenges than you. And could you please explain why it is important for "the white man" to have a better future than anyone else?
|By Aycaramba799 (Aycaramba799) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 06:40 pm: Edit|
This issue is so complicated, to boil it down as a matter of he/she got in would be completely moronic. I see affirmative action as a twofold process. The first is the whole socioeconomic thing. To me, it makes sense, considering the systematic exclusion of minorities from oppurtunities in the past, and the consequences of that. The second is the whole diversity thing, which, quite honestly I like. Id rather not go to school with all the same type of kids.
In my opinion, the same people who argue against affirmative action should also be arguing against legacy and development admits (admitting rich people who will donate money). Than we can talk fairness.
|By Theoneandonly (Theoneandonly) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 03:46 am: Edit|
people stop calling me ignorant...first analyze the facts in relation to the population....the white man's future is being hindered in the college admissions process. I am not a white supremacist, and i dont imply that the white man should have everything over the other races. Its just that it is becoming increasingly difficult for white people to succeed, especially poor white people. Not all minorities are poor and not all whites are rich. Trust me im not rich--my parents make forty thousand a year combined...so where im coming from is not from a spoiled background.
okay just look at U.S. demographics...and look at Harvard's student population...clearly shows that white people are underrepresented..
Census shows that there are 75.1% whites in U.S.
Harvards student body is only 43% white.
This clearly does not reflect the population of United States.
Harvard accepts 18% asians, only 3.6% asian in population....thus asians get affirmative action benefits too....so stop WHINING!! THAT AA DOESNT APPLY TO U!.
There are 12% blacks in U.S., Harvard accepts 8%...but u gotta know that one third to one half of blacks dont even apply to college, due to work or financial constraints.
There are 12.5% hispanics, Harvard accepts eight percent. About half of hispanics dont end up applying...same reasons as above..so the actual demographics of applicant pool to harvard would be something like six percent hispanic.
and so on....before u start criticizing people (its so easy to be a critic by the way) look at the facts, analyze them, then start talking.....i have a right to my opinions..as does everyone. AA is a pertinent issue in our lives. Putting it off or not talking about it makes its effect even worse.
|By U2tustp830 (U2tustp830) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit|
Please crawl out of the hole that you live in and grow up. So does that mean that every single white person who lives in America applies to Harvard? Does this mean that every social institution needs to reflect the racial breakdown of America? What is wrong with you?
|By Whartonfella (Whartonfella) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit|
harvard is definitely more than 43 percent white. and also im not quite sure why you mesure success in life with going to harvard. not all harvard grads are the most successful (whatever that is).
also white make up the largest portion of students at harvard so in my opinion they're doing quite well.
|By Starbucks (Starbucks) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit|
I tried sympathizing with you at first because I'm white and have also seen less qualified people admitted to schools I've been rejected from, and i STRONGLY oppose affirmative action. But look at what you've said- I think you have some faulty logic. That Harvard accepts 18% Asians when their population is only 3.6% does not suggest Affirmative Action at all. In fact, While the average IQ for whites in the US is 100, that for Asians averages 106. Asians work very hard (it's cultural), and are often more qualifies than white applicants anyways. Asians do not need a push to be accepted to colleges over Whites, believe me.
I oppose affirmative action because it promotes the idea that minorities need an extra push to be accepted to colleges over whites, and I believe that is false. Minorities are as capable, if not more capable, of getting accepted to a great college. When it was created under Lyndon B. Johnson, its purpose was to help minorities escape their backgrounds and become assimilated into American education and work fairly. But I think it is not as relevant in this day and age, and minorities are capable of succeeding on their own. I really just hate that it sends the message that minorities can't do for themselves.
Admissions should disregard ethnicity and legacy. After all, legacy works against many minorities because, say, my grandfather could have attended Harvard whereas your black grandfather couldn't have. I appreciate the diversity that affirmative action adds to colleges, but I wish that college admissions would be based on merit. Plus, there are so many people claiming, "well, I'm 1/16 this or that, so putting this on my application may get me in," when they really consider themselves as White as the next person. I know minorities born in the US, their parents born in the US, who are as American as the next guy. The reasoning behind affirmative action is good, but I just think it's time to do away with it, or at least cut it back some.
|By Justice (Justice) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit|
Maybe the top four people were all jerks, like you. Character is pretty important too, and it's something that is underestimated. In the case of that girl with the low scores, I wish her GPA was higher--that would validate it for me, but maybe she had some spark, something real, something interesting.
Theoneandonly, I suggest you read the works of various published individuals, both those who agree and those who disagree with you on AA. I hope you will see that although your viewpoint may be shared by some, the arguments you presented here have no validity. If you have taken statistics, you should know that URMs are just that; they take up a very small part of the student body and cannot with respect to mathematical integrity be held responsible for the rejections of the high-acheiving students of your school.
|By Chicagodude (Chicagodude) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 02:38 am: Edit|
What's funny to me is that whenever someone says "I'm white and have also seen less qualified people admitted to schools I've been rejected from", everyone assumes the less qualified person was black. Do you know how many unqualified white people got into Harvard? Trust me. I know. My host at the April Visiting program was dumb as a doorknob. Not that he was dumb, it's just he didn't seem to be about anything, if you know what I'm saying. The only reason he got in was because he could play baseball and was on the honor roll in his high school (although, a case can be made for the athlete and how being an athlete shows a certain degree of dedication and drive that can equal or surpass someone who say, won the Westinghouse Scholarship or was a National Merit Scholar, or a Valedictorian). It just goes to show that Harvard attempts to create a diverse student body, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Hey--they need to have SOMEBODY to play baseball, right? And anyways, who says that just because one particular person scores higher on a test that he/she is more qualified. I think the admissions process is a LITTLE BIT more in-depth than that.
Although, I am probably prejudiced to the whole situation. I'm black and I was admitted. Mind you, I had the stats (1540 SAT, 34 ACT), however I see nothing wrong with Harvard attempting to fix the problem of disparity in this country. It seems to me that the only people who are complaining are the people who didn't get in to Harvard. That seems sort of bitter, but I probably would have been ticked off also if someone would lower stats had gotten in over me.
In the end, I believe Harvard seeks out students with direction in his/her life. Someone more than just a high score on a standardized test. If the only factor in the admissions process was an SAT score, then I surely did waste several hours on an essay. And when it comes to the essay, who are we (as the applicants) to judge whose essay is good or if our essay was better or if we are an excellent writer. Even though some students with 1400 SAT's seem to creep their way into Harvard, I think Harvard knows what they are doing. I didn't meet anybody that was truly shallow and incompetent at the April Visiting program. To answer the original question, AA probably doesn't hold much influence on the admissions process. It seems to me that perhaps certain minority students have acquired different skills (beyond acing the SAT's) that have enabled them to get admitted--same as the athlete who got in because he plays baseball.
|By Foreigngrad (Foreigngrad) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 04:02 am: Edit|
"Harvard accepts 18% asians, only 3.6% asian in population....thus asians get affirmative action" (theoneandonly)
Ironically, the reverse appears to be true: It appears to be harder for Asians than for Whites - ceteris paribus - to get in, simply because this subgroup is 'naturally' overachieving.
In consequence, this amounts to a sort of factual 'affirmative action' benefiting 'whites' over Asians - think about it.
|By Thepiskickass (Thepiskickass) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit|
I agree with foreigngrad on this. AA screws Asians over. Too many of us are good.
|By 1212 (1212) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 09:49 pm: Edit|
look as an asian, this post is embarassing. Maybe affirmitive action does leave us out but the truth of the matter is its a sufficient boon to be in the United States. I was born in one of the poorest countries in the world and i have seen the worst. There is no reason to cry over for not being accepted to college. This is competition we must face in foreign land and it will make us a stronger population and maybe some will return to their home to make their birthplace stable. I believe that the school system should be representative of the population, and concessions would have to be made academically. It has been proven that all races have equal skills if applied and that is, afterall, all that matters. Please be glad that you are able to go to an university, there are people (my brothers and sisters) who work more in a day than some of you do in a year, and will never recieve a rudimentary education.
And as for the comment on how affirmitive action is encumbering the caucasian future, i leave you with this statistic that i have discovered from another thread.
- SAT SCORES
AL Gore (Harvard) 1355
George W. Bush, Jr. (Yale) 1206
these two men are considered smart enough to lead the greatest hegemony. Now tell someone the white man got screwed. Trust me, white man will rule the earth for a few more years so go ahead and sleep. Envision a time when the Asian-Immigrant population is so great a voting power that Asians maybe included in Affirmitive action (AA is not just for colleges, im sure that you know, it can take jobs "from the white man" too). You all better hope republicans win all this year and keep up those stringent immigration laws and "homeland security", or atleast expound the facilities at Guantanamo Bay.
|By Angel_Girl (Angel_Girl) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit|
The minority thing is NOT true! I am a minority and got rejected, their loss anyway! Haha. It's not a very good engineering school from the rankings.
I was hoping to get in... parent influence. Dad ia Harvard ex-alumni and everything. I got rejected. I have awesome marks and did an amazing interview. I had outstanding references and tons of extra curriculars!
The FUNNY thing is that FARRRR better engineering schools took me! I got into Cornell... Yeah, I do know reject Ivy and the whole thing but it's better than Harvard for engineering. Got into ICL and UCL in England. And CMU and UPENN too.
I really don't know Harvard's reasoning here. Don't understand how better engineering schools took me and Harvard rejected me. Anyways, I am going to another IVY and I hope to be very happy there
|By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit|
1212: just because you saw it on another thread how do you know that it's true?
|By Piglette (Piglette) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit|
Re: 1212's post --
Those scores could not POSSIBLY be accurate. Sat scores of "1355" and "1206" DO NOT EXIST !!!!
(1350, yes. 1200, yes. But it simply is not possible for either Gore or Bush to have scored anything on the SAT that ends in the digits "5" or "6.")
|By Brian216 (Brian216) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit|
Well now, i see a whole lot of childish bickering going on here. In order for my post to be read objectively, I will not tell anyone what side of the AA issue I am on. I will defend and criticize both sides.
I have seen the most inane and irrational, angry responses come mostly from those against the original poster. Like I said, I wont divulge which side I'm on, but there is no doubt that if this was a debate competition of some sort, the anti-AA side would win, simply because of poorly worded responses of those who posted for AA. It is obvious that those posts were written hastily out of rage.
To the original poster; however, your statistics do not support your argument whatsoever. I dont want to go in to why they dont because I dont feel like explaining it, but if you dont see why then there is a problem that I am not qualified to diagnose. I will say that those that criticize the original poster by saying that he probably is missing something about the , he probably isnt. I doubt that there is something special enough to get her into Harvard that she did, which the poster would not know about if he goes to school with her.
Although the AA is not as influencial at Harvard as it is at say, University of Michigan (Im sure we all heard about that whole deal), it is still weighed in the decision. A minority female who has the same stats as a white or asian male will definitely get in first. These top tier colleges are trying to build classes when they admit. They are trying to get a diverse group; I have read a lot of things written by admissions officers about this. There are simply too many with good stats that are white or asian males and too few with good stats that are female minorities. Thus, they have to give some preference.
Maybe later I will weigh in my own opinion, but this is what I'll say for now.
|By Jomars04 (Jomars04) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit|
You all are calling theoneandonly a jerk, yet look at yourselves. All you guys needed to see was something along the lines of "affirmative action = bad" and you go off on this huge tangent, calling him an "ignorant jerk" and a "white supremacist". Theoneandonly has as much right to say what he thinks as anybody, and it's pathetic that liberals and their hypocrisy dominate our culture. You all say you're so open minded, but did you even consider theoneandonly's post before jumping down his throat? I just look at you all and laugh, you're all telling him to grow up, yet i bet you're all just spoiled brats reiterating what your parents have told you. That's just my two cents, and I know you'll probably all come back with some original, " I was born in a slum and have no parents, so how dare you call me spoiled, and I'm just so much smarter than you at the same time," excuse to make me feel bad or something and Theoneandonly, you'll have to get used libetrals thinking that they own the world. It's pretty sad, I know.
|By Adjlad (Adjlad) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit|
my two cents:
I believe that the affirmative action thing needs to be reformed, but I still believe that it is a good thing.
Also, we should judge people on the basis of their character not their race.
Affirmative action contradicts this, but being white also does too. Being white you already have an advantage in life. White males might not get a special look when applying to college. They do get an advantage in life though. "White Privilege" It might not sound good, but it's tru.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit|
You guys use racism as a plug factor for everything. Why was it that Asians could come to this country after being excluded till 1943 and make up a life from having absolutely nothing, when Afro Americans could not do it in more than 150 years? Asians also had to drink from the colored fountains! Just because Asians are working their butts off while the majority of Afro Americanse (here are stats) are doing "other stuff" does not mean WE should be discriminated against. For you people who will argue against this, lets go point by point:
African Americans deserve breaks 'cause they were enslaved: Um, no. They are undermining all that they were fighting for...you were in slavery, and you then had Affirmative Action work for you. In this much time, other races have come up from 0 so why cant you?
There are less Afro Amers in college so we deserve breaks: NO! This puts stigma on the actual african americans, so whenever a smart guy who actually came in due to his OWN merit arrives, they say "he was a quota hire."
Afr. Amr. are poor due to slavery and should get an upper hand:
guess what? berkeley found most guys receiving in were from...RICH FAMILIES! also, with this logic, why not let asians in easier to the NBA cause they are even more underrepresented than African Americans! Also, why the ---- do Latinos get aid. Were they discriminated against?
Fact of the matter is: STOP WHINING. Your ancestors DID bear the brunt, but you guys are just as discr against as other minorities.
|By Aycaramba799 (Aycaramba799) on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
Wow, you are a moron...stop talking
I think its wonderful that Asians were able to pick themselves up and move on from there humble beginnings, and I agree that there they had to (and still must) contend with institutianalized prejudice. But beyond this your argument breaks down.
African Americans faced institutional racism that selectively denied them (a large minority compared to asians in america), the right to better paying jobs and education. This racism essentially created an economic underclass and a perpetual situation of racism that plagues our society. Taken from someone who lives in an minority laden innercity, these programs are still necessary.
Furthermore to counter your complete ignorance, the Asians that you are referring to, that faced prejudice are an extremely small community. Most east and south asian people who comprise that academic elite moved here in the last 50 years, usually from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They were not the ones who faced that discrimination
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit|
1. African Americans were "A large minority compared to Asians in America:" No. There were consistently less Asians in America, and furthermore, there were less Asians in America when Affirmative Action was initiated.
2. "Asians did not face institutionalized discrimination." Yes, they did. They had to follow the same black codes during the segregated sixties, in addition to being BARRED from the country till 1942 (as in they could not even APPLY for citizenship). That is a federal discrimination.
3. "Most East and South Asian people who comprise that academic elite moved here in the last 50 years, usually from middle and upper middle class backgrounds."
You are right on this one. They did. However, when they did arrive here, they faced similar discrimination. If you argue that their social boundaries made up for discrimination, then you must consider the fact that African Americans who benefit from Affirmative Action are generally middle to upper class, facing less discrimination. I understand that you want to help the race, yet do it from an economic standpoint. People who need help the most are those to whom it is denied. Help African Americans through giving lenient admission to those with economic difficulties (adapting to the idea that Afr, Amers who need help are underprivileged).
And please, I respect your intellect. I know you shall do the same.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit|
Mahajan- way to point out my immaturity. I'm sorry about that, it's just too many people make comments like that simply to be rude.
However, I still recommend you take a few courses in economics and american history before you argue that blacks don't deserve AA. In proportion to their population in the US, blacks are underrepresented both at colleges and in white-collar jobs. That's why AA exists, not necessarily because blacks are financially insecure but because discrimination against them resulted in their falling behind in terms of education. Also, most people say, as if they know "Oh, that black kid got in because of AA" No one knows that for a fact, and it's irritating how that gets assumed.
By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit
I understand that blacks are underrepresented, but I am not trying to disprove that. My idea simply advocates the natural evolution of a race. Blacks, through generations of work, will naturally become adapted through society if they have a distinct work ethic, cultivated only through a distant history. To force this upon society rather oversightedly ignores so many people who can contribute to our nation. What irks me is the extent to which African Americns are given leniency. Studies have shown (excuse my nerdish stats) that African American admits have SAT scores 200 points less. One can additionally argue that Asians fell behind in the sense of physical endeavours due to a stigma that society associated with them. In accord with that line of thought, why not admit underqualified Asians to National sports leagues? Choosing not to practice is a distinct choice, just as choosing to or not to study is a more palpable choice for rich and upper class African Americans. Centuries of slavery have retarded the progress of Afr. American learning, however the clearly lower grades among suburban and rich inner city blacks is merely a reflection on their choice to work. Wealthy blacks (I refer to those who gained through education) have a strong work ethic (anyone who wants to succeed must have one), and, like in all human families, they have the opportunity to pass it on. Yes, their ancestors might have been bridled by slavery, however the middle and upper class blacks who benefit are in the same initial situation as other races of the same social stature.
Thus, I retain my point that social economic mobility should be a stronger factor in admits than social racial restrictions.
The idea of black stigma is another detrimental point to address. When people assume that the majority of African Americans do get in due to a push, they are, in the present conditions, sadly correct. All Afr. Amer. receive a push. Whether they could have succeeded without that is unclear, yet the stigma shall remain as long as the system. "No one knows that for a fact," yet unfortunately, according to stats, they must make assumptions based on the minority. No one can generalize all employers as being discriminatory, however due to experience and majorities, it is accepted as a fact by you/your community.
|By Iwantcolumbia (Iwantcolumbia) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit|
as a white person with a 1510 sat score, national merit finalist, etc... i agree with you 100%. i was rejected from harvard and i deserve to go there so much more than minorities with low scores.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 11:55 pm: Edit|
Harvard didnt think so...
Besides, it looks like your allegiance is to Columbia now. Sorry you didnt "deserve" anything.
|By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 02:43 am: Edit|
Finding Bush SAT score seems pretty easy on the net. It is 1206, which is actually higher than I thought...LOL! But then that fool probably got lots of private tutoring just to get that 1206. Big deal!
Al Gore: 1355...that's a pretty good score in the old days.
A Harvard degree doesn't mean "future". By the way, aren't most of those that got in with legacy whites? With all the politics and glass ceiling that are still in place, whites from 2nd tier schools are probably more likely to advance further in real world than a black guy graduating from Harvard. So white folks, you guys are in great shape still. No worry! No need to sweat the small stuffs like AA IN COLLEGE when the doors are wide open for you AFTER COLLEGE.
|By Ambitiousyokel (Ambitiousyokel) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
You don't deserve to go to Harvard. No one ~deserves~ to go to Harvard. I'm just happy that I don't have to go to school with you next year - apparently, the admissions office can tell if you're an arrogant, racist, entitled little SOB.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 03:03 pm: Edit|
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 06:10 pm: Edit|
U Guyz...no one "deserves" to go to Harvard, and I agree that is pretty arrogant...but is Iwantcolumbia really racist if he voices concern against affirmative action?
|By Meth5400 (Meth5400) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit|
No he's not-everyone is entitled to an opinion-HOWEVER, it is not true to say that all wealthy whites today had the "work ethic" mahajan2005 speaks of-most whites in the slavery days acquired their money...and passed it on to their offspring....who were able to augment this wealth because of the preference that one could argue still favors whites. It is simply not true to say that all wealthy whites "worked hard"-they simply had the opportunity to accumulate and pass on wealth (sometimes derived from slave labor)
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:02 pm: Edit|
Meth whatever, Im not saying that ALL whites benefited due to their hard effort; but it would be just as false to condone the view that wealth was solely due to accumulation and that all wealth was derived from slave labor. Slave labor, it has oddly been proven, actually hurt the Southern economy. While it did give direct benefits to white farmers, a study at (I think Brown) found that it did hinder their current wealth.
I still believe that wealthy blacks have MORE opportunities, in a racial and monetary sense, than poor Asians. The fact that the statistics of the 85% upper class Afr. Amers are much lower than the poor Asian's mean SAT scores (I say poor because more Asians apply for financial aid than Blacks). That is pathetic. The system is favoring the wrong groups.
I continue to advocate admission based on monetary status alone. The suburban elite of Afr. Amers. who make up the majority of the Harvard student body Blacks have already crossed the hurdle created by slavery and racism. While they may face more racism in the future, it will be far less harsh than the racism incited against the lower classes of Chinese Americans. If wealthy blacks have poorer applications (that is a combination of poorer SAT scores, extracurricula, and few "special tipping factors" as North Star Mom claimed), that should not be externalized on racism alone. The extra push for that social strata of Blacks is, sadly enough, unfair.
|By Haithman (Haithman) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit|
Why do we argue so much about something that will probably not change in the forseeable future?
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit|
Mahajan, why are you such a douche.
The surburban elite of african americans.. stfu... how do you know these people are the surburban elite.
In fact, how do you know that they got in due to AA. Colleges aren't stupid, they will not accept a rich black student with lower stats just because he's black.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit|
Haha, Davidrune, whats with the idea of being immature? I mean, I would take you much more seriously if you did not call me a douche.
Also, go to 2002 Education Budget Consortium for more info. Its probably available ar your library.
Also, as I said earlier, I have to generalize that African Americans got extra points due to their skin color. In fact, admission officers admit that they take rich black students with lower stats than non-Blacks with the same stats. Out of the 134, 000 Blacks who took the SAT, less than 200 got over 1450. Considering the numbers that were admitted, that is pretty lenient. Not to say that SATs are the only determinant factors, but unless colleges reveal some groundbreaking evidence that Blacks have better ECs, I think you need to re-examine your arguements.
|By Cocoloco86 (Cocoloco86) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit|
Mahajan2005 no one takes YOU seriously. You sound very immature and uninformed. Have you convinced yourself that what you say is actually true? If you have, you're the only one who's convinced.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit|
well, i find it immature to bring name calling into this. in your stating that i am uninformed, i find it strange that you have not provided any facts yourself. you have merely encouraged my not arguing the point. that blows your argument to pieces because one then has to assume you have nothing with which to counter my points, or at least to defend the system against my criticizing it.
also, why, honestly, do you ask if i have convinced myself about my argument's correctness? i hope you have been reading the posts above.
i am not the only one convinced on this. if my viewpoint were in such a dire minority, we would not be having a discussion. boards would not be popping up everyday for or against this point; it would be settled.
i see no reason to accuse someone of being immature solely for arguing a point (that too with some evidence, obviously uncommon among the previous posts defending affirmative action). obviously, you take me seriously enough to consider me a threat, and to respond to the post. cocoloco, you are stumbling over your own arguments, and, while i hesitate to say this, they are hypocritical. i have successfully provided facts that the rich DO receive affirmative action, and that they do benefit over other races that deserve it more (in the sense of the conditions in which they were brought up). i do feel that african americans are currently discriminated against, but in the upper class, they receive a evenly spread blow. an african american doctor, due to his social status, does not receive the same treatment as a lower class chinese laundromat.
i DO believe in reform. i just see reform as meaningful through an economic standpoint. in that sense, your arguments would be covered, and the widespread notion of african american free rides would be obliterated; a sense of true justice would also emerge.
instead of arguing against the argument per se, argue for the point. prove your own immaturity cocoloco, when it comes to providing valid points.
|By Meth5400 (Meth5400) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit|
hmmm...mahajan-your comment about the af-am doctor...i think you are wrong. a WEALTHY black man in his luxury car is UNDOUBTEDLY subject to more discrimination than a chinese man (no matter the car he is driving). IF (and thats a very weak if) Chinese were discriminated against as much in that manner- I assume it would become very public-about as public as DRIVING WHILE BLACK is...i certainly don't hear about DRIVING WHILE CHINESE.
|By Meth5400 (Meth5400) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
That being said....I respect your opinion and um...believe that you are intelligent enough to respect mine. Nobody is changing anybody's mind with this...thats a given-hahaha-so i'm done participating in this discussion. A very interesting debate indeed...
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 06:01 pm: Edit|
haha, i don't know if i agree with that. of course, rich african americans receive a degree of discrimination in the public light, but all public figures are fingered in their pressure spots. it is natural, and the blackness is just one trait used against them.
i refer to the suburban black family that is surrounded by relatively knowledgeable (and thus generally not bigoted families). economic standards are usually held in parallel with a black man's plight, but people do not realize those that affirmative action says.
if you believe the issue is resolved enough for you to leave the discussion, then so be it. thank you for the valid points. you are one of the few sources who has actually put up a competitive argument for the system, yet i still must disagree.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit|
I hate to resort to name calling, but pretty much what you're saying is that African Americans are less qualified than anybody else and that we don't deserve to go to college.
Well I hope you drown in your ignorance, you anally retentive douche.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit|
P.S. messages pop like these because of uninformed little pests like you, who misconstrue facts and adjust them to fit their argument.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit|
davidrune...you are missing my point, and ironically, at the same time telling me to drown in my own ignorance...while i have seen many individual african americans succeed, most as a whole ARE statistically less qualified than Asians; that is not to say that all african americans cannot succeed, but those that get into the colleges do not receive the same standardized test scores. thats all i can go by. i am not saying you do not DESERVE to go to college, but i am saying that you should not be piggy backing unfairly into college at the expense of others. you deserve to go to college if you earn yourself through on your own merit....yes, if you do not measure up to others, you do not deserve to go to college.
why? because YOU are gonna harm the world if you come out underqualified. if there are others that can contribute more than you (that is, looking at your past efforts), then you are chipping away at economy, politics, and, the average citizen's life.
that is not to say all african americans, and that is not to say all races. you say i misconstrue facts, but you have yet to provide me with reason why. you have also just admitted that messages pop up, so your previous statement that nobody is convinced or at least threatened by my arguments is illogical. provide me with significant facts (or, in your case, ANY facts) davidrune, and i would gladly call myself a douche.
also, the fact that your only response to facts is telling someone to "drown in [their] ignorance" and calling them an "anally retentive douche" only furthers my arguments. am i uninformed? i simply ask you why...provide logic; i do not believe you are dumb, but i know that you have better sense than to insult others merely for arguing a point.
i have not adjusted facts to fit my argument, but have adjusted my argument to fit my facts.
|By Cocoloco86 (Cocoloco86) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 01:52 am: Edit|
Mahajan2005- read my responses in the discrimated against thread.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit|
Which subtitle is that under? There is only one "Affirmative Action Discriminated Against Thread" under, I think, Harvard, but that shows no new messages.
|By Nirvanarageatm (Nirvanarageatm) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit|
WAIT>>>>The purpose of affirmative action now, is not so much as to reverse previous injustices faced by African Americans as it once was, but now it primarily gives the college the right to construct its incoming class as it sees fit. If a college is allowed to consider race as a factor in admission, then that college can create a diverse class; however, University of Michigan recently decided to not only limit their victory in grutter v. bollinger to consider race, but now in their application process, they look at socio-economic diversity and similar matters. So, race-based affirmative action is still necessary, but that in no way excludes the use of socio-economic-based affirmative action.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit|
I agree, you stated this in another post. U Mich, Caltech, and surprisingly, many liberal arts colleges are offering admission while equally considering race and economic status. This section deals specifically with Harvard, which does not "officially" consider economic condition as much as race. Socio-economic conditions are not in fact branched together. Rather, social conditions are fabored.
Im not going to respond to the question of the necessity of AA, however most colleges weigh race more heavily than income.
|By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit|
Blacks and other minorities have an advantage over other applicants
That is the truth
Now the problem is deciding if it is fair or not.
|By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 06:16 pm: Edit|
I'm a black and think AA can be a little unfair.
"A really dumb girl at my school, with no major extracurriculars, low grades (not in top ten percent), and low SATs (in twelve hundreds)....was admitted." that's not dumb. that's average. plus, lots of minorities don't get accepted.
if anything, i believe they should change AA and weigh income.
|By Mahajan2005 (Mahajan2005) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit|
I agree with poison ivy, and the original poster probably only found it dumb because he was considering "average" to be the typical Ivy League applicant.
Thank you poison ivy for not letting personal prejudice come in the way. I only wish people understood that I am not a racist for arguing this. I just do not want to see contemporary inequality, and even more importantly, I do not want to see a race disdained by others merely due to a suspicion of unfairness (which, today, is unfortunately true).
I know african americans who are smart enough to get into Ivy Leagues without AA. They are still viewed as quota applicants. That is wrong.
Income should be the determinant because that is more critical to opportunity than skin color. The disadvantages to skin color today are more subjective than those of income.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|