Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: What Are My Chances?: December 2002 Archive: MINORITIES GETTING INTO ELITE UNIVERSITIES
By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Ok, I am beyond sick of this whiny, ABSURDLY rude stuff from people who are bitter about people who are minorities/atypical applicants getting accepted into ivy league colleges. You were NOT there. You did not read their essays or letters of recommendation. You do not have a full understanding of their situation. And most importantly, no amount of scapegoating/finger pointing is going to get you into Princeton (Harvard, etc.) You can sit there and blah blah about legacy and affirmative action, but that doesn't change the fact that these schools are private and they can use whatever admissions policies that they. In other words, NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO NOTHING. That's probably going to be hard for some of you to grasp, but tough, deal with it. It's amazing how many of you believe that effort and personal accomplishment earn you the right to attend these colleges. This process is about admitting a diversified pool of students that have a high probability of being sucessful in a BROAD range of areas. Now that means they can't all be perfect in the traditional 1600 SAT score, 4.0 GPA, 1000+ awards sense. That's what diversity. So before you go telling someone to f*** off because they're a cheerleader who got into Yale with a 1260 SAT I score, remember that you don't have the full picture, even with their freaking stats. NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING!!! FYI, I'm an African-American female in California with a 1480 SAT I score, 1500 SAT IIs score, 4.6173 GPA, Black Student Union President for 3 years, ASB Treasurer for 4 years, and 1,033 hours of community service. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I just got deferred to regular admission from Stanford. And even I thought I'd have a good chance of being admitted ED. But I wasn't, and I AM NOT BLAMING OTHER PEOPLE FOR IT. So anyway, there's my rant. Shout out to everyone deferred out there!!

By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 07:56 pm: Edit

You seem to think there is some inherent value in racial diversity. Diversity of experiences and interests do indeed have value, but diversity of skin color is rather worthless in and of itself.


Unless you are Black, Hispanic, or Native American. Then you are entitled to an extra 100-250 points on your SAT.

"It's amazing how many of you believe that effort and personal accomplishment earn you the right to attend these colleges."

What else is supposed to earn you admissions? Oh yes, being born with a melatonin advantage.


By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Give me a break, ok?
"Diversity of experiences and interests do indeed have value, but diversity of skin color is rather worthless in and of itself."

Yeah, and people don't get treated differently because of the color of their skin? RIIIIGHT. We all have the same experiences, regardless?? Your incredible ignorance to that simple fact only proves my "Certain people think they're entitled to x, y, and z" point further.

By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Quite honestly I was laughing out loud as I read your post railing against people believing they are entitled.


What is Affirmative Action but the ENTITLEMENT of minorities to a better chance at college simply because of their skin color?

I also entirely fail to see how my belief that diversity of skin color is useless shows the belief that I am entitled to anything.

Now if you will read my post it says that diversity of experience does have value. Experiences are generally reflected in your application through essays and resumes, not through a checkbox that says "African American" next to it.


By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:52 pm: Edit

What, what, WHAT are you talking about?
I never said that minorities were entitled to a better chance at anything. They have to be considered in a different light. Do you honestly believe that just because I live in a suburb with white kids I've had the same experiences as them. You've got to be kidding me. It shapes your entire life - your outlook on the world, your goals, what you think you're capable of...checking that box tells the board something factual about you, but there's OBVIOUSLY the experience of being black behind. This isn't even like religion, ok? You can't hide the fact that you're black. You walk into a room and there you are, especially if it's a room full of supposedly Gifted and Talented white kids who are all looking at you like you just got shuttled in from another planet. There are thousands and thousands of different experiences for different races, I'm sure, but let me assure, NONE of them are the white experience. Not to mention the fact that your faulty logic only works because of the fact that our current society was formed by racism. If a black student were applying to Howard or Spelman, or some other relatively prestigious historically black college (although there are none that are top tier) being black wouldn't help very much, would it? The fact that all of the "elite" colleges in the ivy league have a majority of white students (or the white students are the biggest minority) is my point in itself. If you're white, you have differentiate yourself more (and even this rule is not absolute), as they already have plenty of those students in their school. If you're a minority, you are already different in that ONE aspect, and could offer your experiences to other students. However, it's a miniscule advantage, hardly the 100 pts on the SATS that you so eloquently labled it. It's not even an academic advantage...it's just ridiculous. So we could magically add 100 pts to a white applicant's SAT score(to level the playing field), they would suddenly have what it takes to get into the Ivy league? Sure, it would. But it's unsupported racist logic like yours that perpetuates all too common "I could have gotten in if I were Mexican/Black/etc..." syndrome, instead promoting REAL understanding of the society we live in. I'm nobody's scapegoat.

By Shannon on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 09:03 pm: Edit

hey Jen, thx so much... something I've always wanted to say. I got into Harvard EA and just because I'm black people automatically assume I couldn't have gotten in without my race. Thx for sticking up for us who actually got what we earned.

By lala on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 09:20 pm: Edit

Tim does have a very good point. I went to school with two African-American girls for 9 years at a private elementry school. Their experiences were no different than anyone else's at the school. Their race played no factor during the 9 years. Both kids had semi-wealthy dedicated parents who gave them everything they needed to succeed. It is absurd that these two when they check the "african-american" box should gain an advantage on non-minority students.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 09:36 pm: Edit

And how, may I ask, would you know that their experience was no different? There is absolutely no way. Just because someone is very good at putting on a face doesn't mean they had the same experience as you, WHATEVER. You don't know if they had to dodge the same whispers and scowls ("I bet she's going to get into college just because...") that I do. You don't know how it was for them to adapt. I bet there were the same people talking behind their backs about how they even ended up going to such a school. Probably got financial aid, because they were minorities, right? Or because their parents were rich because they got well-paying jobs through affirmative action right? And the blame cycle continues, although it continues to solve NOTHING. And how many of the minorities that apply to these colleges are wealthy and upper middle class?? It astounds me how ruthless all of you are, so unwilling to believe an entire race of people incapable a single accomplishment (or the fact that they fight battles) on their own.

By katz on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Diva, I agree with you all the way. That is what I was trying to get people to realize when I started the "Why is everyone so bitter about..." I, like you, was deferred to Stanford today, even with my hispanic background, excellent stats, etc. I just find it hard to believe that people are so arrogant to think that us minorities get treated the same way as whites do. It is so evident that we don't. I mean, just look at all the posts that say "F-uck hispanics" or the numorous ones that say "you just got in because you are afircan-american". Why can't everyone see that our stats and everything else are just as good as the next person, and that if we get accepted, sure it is an added bonus that we are minorities, but that isn't the only reason we got in! I am so sick of all the people who claim they are not racist, but then go on to say things that put antoher race down.

By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:01 pm: Edit

so if you get in BECAUSE of your race, i think it's wrong. If you are qualified anyways, sure whatever. If you're qualified, but somebody who is of another race is more qualified and you get in over them simply because of race, that's wrong.

By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Hey Shannon:

I've read your stats and for what it's worth I believe that most likely you could have gotten EA to Harvard whether you were white or black. You have very excellent stats.


"The fact that all of the "elite" colleges in the ivy league have a majority of white students (or the white students are the biggest minority) is my point in itself."

Guess what? The majority of people in the United States are white. Still, of course, we have the term underrepresented minority to describe the situation where the percentage of students of x race at a school is less than the percentage of x race from the entire college-age population.


1. Poverty: The groups that are URM are also generally more likely to be poor, which gives an advantage both in schools and for SAT prep. This calls for improvement of schools and a revamping of the SAT so that the effects of "prep" are nullified as much as possible. It also could possibly call for an economics-based Affirmative Action, but not a race-based one. Remember, there are also many poor white kids - probably more than you think. Many poor white people live in areas where there is little to no black population.

2. Lingering Racism: No one can deny that there is still some level of racism in this country. A big step towards ending this influence in the area of education would be an attempt towards a more race-blind policy. No boxes to check off about your race. Of course, names can still tell the race, but applications review could be split from the name. The other effect of racism is on the individual student's life. Part of this is poverty, which is already covered. Other parts of racism against an individual are going to be just that, INDIVIDUAL. If the person believes that they were such a negative influence that they received lower grades, scores, treatment by teachers, etc., then that is a subject for individual concern in an essay or supplemental material. Racism that happens or does not happen to individuals will not be fixed by more blanket racism against another group.

3. Culture: Here I appeal to the overrepresented minority, Asians. There is a great deal of cultural influence on education. Asian parents generally place a huge emphasis on education, grades, and hard work, which shows in their admittance to colleges. (To disprove this, you must prove that Asians are either inherently more intelligent, are exceedingly wealthy as a group, or that there is a racial bias for Asians, independent of their grades, scores, and activities, in college admissions.) Other cultures (including Whites) place less emphasis on education. This is of course very general and there are exceptions to each rule, and the individual can and should strive to exceed the cultural expectations placed on him and not fulfill the negative cultural expectations which will also be placed on him, or to find and try to fulfill his or her own expectations in every area. (Before you tear into me, I have talked about this with many people over the years. Consider it an informal survey. Most Asians I talk to have parents who insist on nineties and above. Many Blacks I talk to have parents who insist on not failing, but those whose parents have higher expectations, or those who have a personal drive, can definitely achieve the nineties and above. Whites vary widely between these extremes. I'm not saying any one culture is better than another, but can be quite different.)

"However, it's a miniscule advantage, hardly the 100 pts on the SATS that you so eloquently labled it. "

So far the most detailed explanation of any colleges Affirmative Action policy I have found is from MIT, and this wasn't even in an area intended for the "general public" (but still accessible to it - I didn't crack anything or do anything illegal.) MIT says:

"Some of these candidates come from disadvantaged backgrounds and through no fault of their own have received poor preparation. As with all candidates, the Admissions Committee looks for evidence of high achievement in their schools, a strong commitment to our educational aims, exceptional personal strength, and high levels of
motivation; however, the Committee interprets their standardized test scores rather broadly."

Note some key phrases: "*SOME* of thes candidates come from *DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS*..." which to me sounds like an argument for economics-based AA, not a race-based one.

"the Committee interprets their standardized test scores rather *broadly*."

I'd say rather broadly is worth at least a hundred points or so.


By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:24 pm: Edit

One more thing:

"You don't know if they had to dodge the same whispers and scowls ("I bet she's going to get into college just because...") that I do."

If there was no AA you certainly wouldn't hear that type of comment anymore.


By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:36 pm: Edit

You've more or less repeated all the unsubstantiated stuff you just said, and I, more or less, have the same answer (see above, hahaha.) I'm quite sure we could all care less as to whether we earn your seal of approval as deserving acceptees to elite colleges. So save your overbearing judgment, thanks. (P.S. I'm just wondering here, do you have any real credentials that qualify your oh-so informed views on being a qualified applicant? If I didn't know better, I would say your bitter remarks have more to do with your personal insecurities and self-esteem issues than they do with "unqualified minority applicants" getting unfair advantages and stealing your spot.)

By Steve on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Hey Diva, listen up alright. I'm white. But I'm not rich, not even close. My dad has been unemployed for a year, and my mom works two jobs. I have a younger sister who has epilepsy. The whole point of affirmative action is to give a chance to disadvantaged kids, right? What about me? You live in the suburbs with white kids. I live in the ghetto more or less with hispanics and blacks, but affirmative action does NOTHING for me. When they see YOUR application they'll say "Oh she's black, she's had it rough." They'll see me and say "oh, just another white kid." What's fair about that?

By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:47 pm: Edit

I try to be a well-informed and well-thought-out guy on quite a few issues, or do I have to be an admissions counsellor to have an opinion on the process.

I also did not use ad hominems. I argued against your argument rather than insulting you.

Trust me, I have some of the best self-esteem of any person I know.


By lala on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Hey diva, or can i call you disphit? Dipshit, maybe i went to school with the person since i was five years old. there were no whispers. there were 40 kids in the grade and i'm damn sure there was no discrimination. how can YOU assume the extent to which i am able to know a person's experiences unless you actually see things through my eyes?? I SAW THE PERSON FOR 1800 DAYS SINCE THE AGE OF 5. You know MY experience of seeing other people at the school from a single post on a message board. You commit the same act that you accuse me of dipshit. AND NEVER DID I QUESTION THEIR ACADEMIC ABILITIES! One of them was the salutatorian and the other one was very smart as well. What bugs me the most is that you, dipshit, think you have any idea what is going on. THEY WERE THERE BECAUSE THEY COULD PAY. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEIR PARENTS GOT THEIR JOBS AND NO ONE EVER QUESTIONED IT AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO! you are making an assumption that i blame them for ANYTHING! YOU ARE PLAYING THE BLAME GAME YOURSELF by saying that i am playing the blame game, which i am absolutely not doing. They deserve to go to great colleges, but not because of their race.

oh yeah, one more thing... you are a disphit.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Lala (healthy body, or whatever colorful moniker you go by), I think a much more appropriate name for you would be arrogant, hillbilly, illiterate psychopath, or AHIP (for short!) AHIP, your opinion means zip because you have failed to provide any useful insight on this topic. As another person who knows a wealth of information on minorities based on the desperately compelling and overused argument that "I have a black friend..." You have successfully wasted space, congratulations. And to add to your long list of accomplishments, you've mastered the art of stringing together cliche profanties in the pathetic attempt to garner attention from people who clearly possess more powers of articulation than you do. If you've managed to read this far with your limited English skills, I have another prize for you: A shiny gold star with the words "BLATHERING IDIOT" emblazoned across it. You can conveinently stick this to your forehead so people can ignore you in meaningful conversation, and with any luck, shove you in front of fast-moving vehicle so the world can be rid of one more annoying twit who knows absolutely nothing but continues to promote their uneducated opinion anyway. Once again, I salute you.

By katz on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:04 pm: Edit

lol, that just made my dissapointing day so much better!!! :)

By Tim on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:08 pm: Edit

I hereby declare that by resorting to ad hominems lala and divajen both lose the argument, leaving me as the winner. :)


By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Steve, I really don't think that if you put your experience in your essay that they would ignore and label you a "rich white kid." And I don't believe that they would discount your experience, but if there IS a difference between you and a poor black kid. I don't believe that race evokes pity from admissions officers, I think it simply makes you stand out a little more. A 100 pts on your SATs is blowing it waaay out of proportion. If I had gotten a 1580 instead of a 1480 on my SATs, I really think it would have made a difference(I think I was very close to getting in) and I'm sure katz would agree. I believe it gives you an edge, but not THAT much of an edge (to the exaggerated extent Tim describes.) As for me, my dad is also currently unemployed, but I'm sure they take into account the fact that I live in Californian suburb as evidence that I haven't had it as rough, or in the same fashion as someone who say...hailed from East LA, or an inner city. I just don't know this confidence that I have such an advantage over you comes from.

By you dipshit!! on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Here's a real test to see if you could have gotten in on your own. How about you don't check off the minority box at all? This way you'll be on the same level with everyone else. And when you get rejected from the college you wanna go to, you'll see what whites have to go through ALL THE TIME!!

By aznchick on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:25 pm: Edit

i didn't, cuz i'm azn. i think it worked. i'm in stanford.

By Steve on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:26 pm: Edit

WAIT.....What's the difference between me and a poor black kid. DOES HE GET MORE HUNGRY THAN ME WHEN WE BOTH DON'T EAT? IS MY HOUSE WARMER THAN HIS IN THE WINTER? IS CALCULUS JUST THAT MUCH EASIER FOR ME WHEN NEITHER OF MY PARENTS WENT TO COLLEGE? DOES HIS BLACKNESS SOMEHOW MAKE THE EFFECTS OF POVERTY THAT MUCH HARDER THAN FOR ME AND MY MAGIC WHITE SKIN? Oh, and while colleges may look at me a little differently because I'm poor, a poor black kid still gets way more advantage, and even a rich black kid has an advantage over me. One more thing, 100 points on the SAT is an UNDERESTIMATION of the difference. Read about the guy here who got a 1310 and got into MIT? Oh yeah, he was hispanic. Ever hear about a white kid getting in with a 1310? Not even a 1410 gets a white kid into MIT. In fact, there have been whities with 1590 on this board rejected.

By Gregon on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:28 pm: Edit

The best way to stop racism is to get rid of boxes. The sooner we stop classifying blacks and making them feel disadvantaged the sooner they'll start feeling they have the opportunity to succeed without some stinking college handout (that's what it is.)

Is that really what races want? A handout? I would think that they would like to prove that they are capable of matching whites on a level playing field not one that's scewed in their favor.

Let the smartest people and most talented people in. That's a true test of character not the color of one's skin.
(even if it means MIT will be all asian!)

By Mike (Mike) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Poor white kids who do not come from families who have not gone to college get an edge too. Legacies get advantages. Jock who couldn't qualify on any other basis gets a better chance. Wyoming kids are more in demand the CA kids. Lots of stuff effects who gets in. Seems silly to pick one reason and complain. Besides who wants to go to college with people who are just like me and have over 1500 SATs?

By WISDOM on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:30 pm: Edit

that makes no sense gregon

i say if you r eliminating minorities, then eliminate legacies, they suck more

the Wisdom speaks

By heh on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit

gregon makes perfect sense if you actually read his post carefully.
get rid of the boxes. and yea, legacy does suck... but equally, i think. ha.

By Gregon on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:42 pm: Edit


Legacy = They do legacy for more donor money. The sad part is the schools don't need that money. They have HUGE endowments. I got accepted to ND, they put a huge emphasis on legacy status. I'm pretty sure I could've gotten accepted without it, I might feel more confident about myself if there wasn't legacy status.

Jocks = have a talent. I said most talented.

Wymoning = I agree. What's the point? My uncle was telling this story about the Dartmouth info session where the info person told about how she fought really hard for this underqualified guy because he rode rodeo. So what's it take to get into Dartmouth? Rodeo. THAT's diversity for ya.

"Besides who wants to go to college with people who are just like me and have over 1500 SATs" = I do. And I think others would too. I think going to school with people who are smart and driven would be a stimulating environment for most. If you want to go to a school with a LARGE and DIVERSE body try Ohio State. It's huuuuuuuuuuuge. Don't go to the best schools if you don't want the best people (refer to "The perfect applicant" Imwe Tarded for more on that subject)

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 11:54 pm: Edit

LALA: I checked Other (because I'm half Vietnamese and half Black) which technically, is not just black. I wanted to be completely accurate. But, usually, at least in conversation, I refer to myself as African-American or black, because that's the way I look, and that's the way I am treated. But I did write my essay on being prez of the Black Student Union for three of my four years. So maybe they just assumed. Maybe, maybe. So, lalala, are you content with just spitting out ignorant crap, or can you actually prove it? Wipe that drool, now. Isn't it conveinent that when you were talking about "everyone else" ("...then you'll be on the same level as everyone else") you meant white people? So that's everyone else, huh? Case in point. I'm sure your feeble little brain forgot to process that one. That's how it is: there are minorities (many varying groups) and then there's EVERYONE ELSE -- which would logically imply a plural of groups, but no! It implies ONE GROUP, whites. Why don't you step out of your little bubble and come back down to earth? Why isn't it whites, and then everyone else (Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.) ?? It would make more sense grammatically. But whites are the majority, and that's why your poorly phrased sentence makes any sense. Aznchick, congratulations. These same people were saying that being Asian worked against you at places like Stanford. Guess you are another one of the NUMEROUS exceptions to a false race theory!

By Gregon on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:04 am: Edit

Divajen, you raise an interesting point.

Are you asian or black? Do you have to be one or the other?

What if I'm 1/2 African American? Am I black?
What if I'm 1/4 African American? Am I black?
What if I'm 1/8 African American? Am I black?
What if I'm 1/16 African American? Am I black?

See what I'm talking about. How far does it go?
Is it based on looks? What if a 1/4 black person tans up a bit, does he get the benefits of AA?
Or is it a genetic thing? Do Ivies only accept pure breds?

I am 100% African American.
I am 100% Hispanic.
I am 100% White. <--Racist? What about the two above?
I am 100% Asian.

See what I'm getting at? If race is based on looks then it is the STUPIDEST policy ever created. Why not put eye color and hair color check boxes? Or perhaps a skin color match up? Does one have to be good looking to get into the top schools?

I don't understand, explain the whole color system to me Divajen I'm itching to hear your response. And why didn't you put down asian instead of black? Were you *gasp* unconfident about the disadvantage to asian americans?

By great on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:13 am: Edit

If I found out that my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was black, I would say I was black. That way, I could go wherever I wanted.

By Tim on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:18 am: Edit

Actually, the human race is thought to have evolved in Africa. I don't know if they were black or not, but it's a good guess they were.


By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:41 am: Edit

Well, Gregon,
It's what I look like. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, it is. But of course, you have no idea what it's to ACTUALLY be Asian and not recognized even remotely as such because you "look" black to everyone else. To walk down the street with your own mother or to Back to School night and have everyone ask if she's a friend of your parents or quite simply "Who is that?" To have Pho noodles in a Vietnamese restaurant and have everyone look at you like "Why are you here" and not expect you to speak Vietnamese. You really have no idea what it's like to be forced into identifying with a certain race, do you? So more evidence that not being a minority, much less biracial, and not having to have issues with your race AND THEN pretending to be an authority on the subject really just makes you asinine.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:43 am: Edit

And *gasp*, I actually put "Other" because I cared about being accurate on my app. *Gasp Gasp* I couldn't check Asian, as I am black also. So I didn't put either, exclusively.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:18 am: Edit

Oh, and by the way, Tim, I do not personally argue this point...but I thought you might find it interesting.

By Tim on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:31 am: Edit

Quite honestly I do not know what you are getting at with that link. My last comment was rather a joke. I don't see anywhere in my arguments where I have used any ad hominems myself. I did use the word "you" a lot but it was either used in a general sense, to mean any person (this usage is probably a bad habit and I should stop), or when you used your personal experiences as part of the argument. In any sort of serious argument I try very hard to keep away from ad hominems.

By South Carolinan male on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:27 am: Edit

Simple solution: work backwards...let the kids with really low SAT's and GPA's (of any color, creed, sex, sexual preference, economic background) into the ivy league schools and make the middle class kids (of any color,etc) with high SAT's go to tech schools.. Problems solved. Everything would then be balanced. The Ivy League schools would lose their strangle-hold on the American High School College Decision and then the Tech Schools would take over. Someone has to go to those schools and get those degrees, so why not let the over-achiever/geniuses/priviledged kids get the tech eduaction as they apparently already have the capabilities to "learn" and whatnot associated with the Ivy Leagues. This is from a person with a 860 on the SAT and a 1.46 GPA. I havent done any community service, and I was expelled in the 9th grade so that I am a year behind and now finally a senior. I plan to major in Industrial Mechanics and I am really good with Small engines and bicycles. Shout out to folks in situations like mine.

By Fish (Fish) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:34 am: Edit

Haha. That's my South Carolinian. Go SC.

By mike on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:38 am: Edit

To Tim,

Yes, diversity of experience is important. But skin color is inclusive, because skin color usually denotes an ethnicity, does it not? Regardless, ethnicities all have their own subcultures, do they not? That adds diversity. Say a black american, who has been an American for 100 years. There is an african-american culture in this country that is FAR different from caucasian culture in this country. Racial diversity adds to a campus, it really does.

By rlsmith on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:55 am: Edit

How odd.

We admit a minority student a little less qualified and some white people get all angry, crying "racism."

Yet, we admit an equally unqualified white student from money (think of our president) or a student-athlete, and most white people don't care.

The focus of some white people on race in this context confirms my suspicions:

Any white person against affirmative action for minorities, but not against affirmative action for rich white people is not only a hypocrite, but a racist.

By Mike (Mike) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Funny to hear people argue that SATs or GPAs are going to prove intellegence. Many factors are part of "smart" and skill at multiple choice tests is a strange way to decide who is "worthy"

Diversity is part of the real world and it might as well be part of college because in the end college is just one more step into dealing with that world.

Many elite college grads are going to find them selves working for grads of 3rd/4th tier colleges.

LIFE is not fair and there is no proof that SATs are fair. Still haven't heard from anyone who didn't get into a college because of the race.

By a thought on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 05:40 pm: Edit

guys, diva obvious fails to see the bigger picture. she is not thinking outside the box and until she does that, all of her commments will be hypocritical and wont make sense. tim, gregon you gouys are completely right.

You know whats kinda odd. Colleges like that you can pay for the full tuition, but if you are not economically privilegeed than the college thinks that build character. kinda a catch 22 if you ask me.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit

I "obvious fail to see the bigger picture." Riiight, and where did you get in again? I'm thinking inside the box, huh? Care to elaborate -- let me rephrase, can you elaborate?? Or are you just using a bunch of big words in hopes of sounding competent? Looks like the minorities aren't the ones the whining and complaining - that's the job of you pathetic little snots. After getting deferred from Stanford yesterday, I can laugh at Tim, "a thought" (or should I say, "an idiot"), and gregon, who probably didn't even apply, haven't posted their stats, but are content with just being jealous of the everyone that got in. I didn't get in (yet) and I'm not bitter or scapegoating.

The fact that you people are so insecure about yourselves that you have to blame anyone conveinent for your own personal failings is the saddest. Did you even manage to apply? Or did your paranoia and insecurity tell you that even if you did, you wouldn't get in? FYI, there are plenty of white people that I know (a guy with a 1380) and on this board that didn't have killer stats that got into Stanford and Yale.

The fact is, it hurts more for any of you to admit that you might not have what it takes, as opposed accusing minorities (with the exception of Asians, who usually make up less than 15% of the student body at the ivy leagues) of stealing your spots.

Ad hominem or not, you are PATHETIC LOSERS. If you don't go to college because you refuse to go any other of the great and numerous colleges in this country just because you didn't get into Harvard, you can bitch and moan until they drag you away to asylum. You didn't get in, MOVE ON!

To all of you that did, really, and sincerely, congratulations, YOU DID EARN IT, and nothing these losers can say will take away anything from your achievement or your acceptance.

By Tim on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I have posted my stats at least three times on this board. For your approval, I post them again:



95.73 (3.7) avg. Some weighting, but the weighting here is obscenely twisted. It's impossible to have > 100 average in any class, basically destroying your chance of having a 4 GPA or anything.

Ranked: 3 after Junior year, 1st counting 1st qtr senior grades, probably will end up valedictorian.

SAT I: 1550 - 750 Math, 800 Verbal
Phsyics, Writing, US History - 800s
Math IIc - 680 (••••! bombed this one.)

Highest level scholarship offered by my high school
National Honors Society
National Merit Semi-Finalist

Junior Year - AP Amer. Hist (only one offered, took test got 5.)
Senior Year - AP Comp Sci, AP Euro, AP English, AP Calculus (all offered except AP Bio which I cant take for scheduling reasons.)

School Television program, where I am the co-leader or something like that with one other kid - we really don't have official titles in this thing, we just get the shows done. I am mostly on the technical side of this, making sure all the cameras and sound work, doing the editing, etc..

Computer Administration - this is not an official extracurricular activity but I am the right hand man of the Director of Technology at our school. Basically trying to keep all the technology working faster than the kids can stick pencils, viruses, and other bad stuff in it. Also a little bit of work with Netware and BSD...

"Senior Council" - organization that provides service to the school. Basically they take the top 25 seniors and have them help out with events and such.


Page, local Children's library - Shelving books, cleaning, helping with programs, and many odd jobs that need to be done. I also am the one they go to when the computers used for public internet access break down.

Improv Performer, New York Renaissance Faire - this is a lot of fun, walking around in costume and entertaining the patrons, then going out to the woods in back where most of us sleep over the weekends. Extremely interesting job that gives me a lot of stories to tell my friends, such as the "Texas Belt Buckle".

Zombie, Forest of Fear - this is the Halloween production by the same company that does the Renaissance Faire. You wear zombie makeup, make people scream and cry, and get paid for it.


I applied EA to MIT, and will apply RD to CMU, Cornell, Cooper Union, and perhaps others. I haven't applied to Stanford, Yale, or Harvard, as they are quite simply not the schools I want to go to.

I also very rarely feel insecure about myself.

Think about your "exception of Asians." They are overrepresented in colleges, but no one accuses them of "stealing" their spots. This is because Asians do not get an Asian advantage like Hispanics or Blacks get a URM advantage.

As for admitting that I "might not have what it takes" when "what it takes" is different for URMs compared to everyone else, I believe that is blatantly unfair. If I have any "failings," they are solely my own fault. I don't blame society or anyone else for them. But, when a URM has the same failings that I may have forgiven solely on the basis of skin color, that is unfair.

Also, very few people so far have failed to get into anywhere. Most people right now are either accepted or deferred.

I will also still be against Affirmative Action even if, in March, I am accepted too all the schools I apply to.

As a side note, you are now making huge numbers of logical fallacies. You're using both the ad hominem abusive ("PATHETIC LOSERS"), which has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand, and the ad hominem circumstantial (the idea that Whites and Asians cannot argue against Affirmative Action because they may have a better chance at getting into college without it.) As a counterpoint, I know many URMs who are against Affirmative Action as an insult to their race and many more who believe it is wrong but still take advantage of it as an angle, which I really can't fault them that much for.


By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 09:09 pm: Edit

divajen: go way up to where you call me AHIP. Then look at my wayyyy insightful comment. How does that make me arrogant or anything of that nature? Let's repeat. If you get in simply because of your race, it's wrong. If you are qualified it's fine. So why are you upset? Is the implication here that less qualified applicants should be accepted simply because of their race? Please explain.

Oh yeah way to use big words like "moniker" so you can sound smart and diss on my limited english skills. Oh and please point out any errors in my post. I'm studying for the SATII:Writing.

By Gregon on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Divajen my stats are all over these boards in many many posts. You just have to look for them. Here they are again.

First Name: Gregory
Region: Rural Appalachian Ohio

SAT: 1500 (710V 790M)

Math IIc - 770
US History - 730
Physics - 660 (Arggggggggggg)

Tennis 4 years Captain 2 years
Mock Trial 2 years
Key club 2 years
Some other hobbies

Admissions: The first time I took the SAT I got a 1350 which I wasn't satisfied with. I had always wanted to go to Notre Dame (I'm catholic). My dad went there, so I have legacy. After I got my 1500 we started thinking about Ivies. We looked at a few and I decided to apply EA at Harvard. I knew it was a long shot due to my weak EC's and expected to be deferred, and I was. I'm not bitter because I never expected to get in. I was accepted to Notre Dame which until a few months ago was the ONLY school for me.

Please don't go on a tirade about legacy status, I think it's stupid too. I would rather have recieved admission to ND without legacy (which I firmly believe I could have done.)

WORST PART OF AA: Qualified URM's are assumed to be underqualified.

Divajen you seem to be content at calling people names. Call me names if you wish but just remember there are heart-broken asians with near perfect scores and school work wondering why they didn't get in. Don't tell me why AA is so great. Tell them. They got the short end of the shaft.

By RamiroT on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Ok heres my thought......only a thought (freedom of speech, remember?)

I am hispanic. I was born in Mexico. I scored an 1180. I go to a dominantly hispanic school (95%). Average SAT is about a 750 or so. Now it might sound as if I am for AA right? Actually no. I have been in a classroom with majority white in a better school in a suburb. There was no difference in the education of both classrooms. Just b/c I am hispanic and scored an 1180 I should not be admitted into, lets say, NYU over a white male who scored a 1350. Why? I did not receive any less of an education nor was taught by a less qualified teacher. My skin color (I am actually light skinned) or my race should not be a basis for my admittance. I actually like a challenge. AA should be done away with because it is an insult to me and it is unfair to whites with the same or better qualifications. Maybe if more emphasis was put on education by MORE hispanic, black, etc parents (I said MORE not all, i know that there are many exceptions) then AA wouldn't have to be. I know that my parents do not emphasize education much and that they earn considerably less than most people and are considered low-income, but that shouldn't place me above others. Initiative should. Now there is a correllation between rich kids being smart. Reason being because their parents know the importance of a good education and they emphasize it. Now those kids do not have to follow that path. They have free money and could go to state school and slack off daddy's money. But they have a drive that makes them succeed, no different than a black or hispanic kids drive. That should be the basis for admission and not color, race, or whatever other reason.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:09 am: Edit

How in the hell did this discussion turn into one about AA? I am neither advocating that policy or defending it. THAT ISN'T EVEN THE TOPIC. THE GODDAMN TOPIC IS MINORITIES GETTING INTO ELITE UNIVERSITIES. Many of them, in fact, most of them, get state grants and are barred from using it in admissions. They are, however, as private schools, allowed to evaluate a student's background and culture in order to accurately evaluate their experiences, achievements, blah blah blah.

Ramiro - just common sense here - is anyone's argument for AA involve a kid of color and a white kid from the exact same backgrounds applying to the same school and then the kid of color getting in just on the basis of that??? Noooo. They argue to keep AA to keep that kid of color from the ghetto who has lower test scores because of lack of resources, a chance at a good college. The situation above, sad as it is to say (AND OBVIOUS) is much LESS common than the latter. How many upper middle class or middle class neighborhoods where that situation occurs exist with significant black or hispanic populations?? Have you heard of a mostly hispanic,or even 50% hispanic upper middle class suburb? YEAH, NO. I doubt a great many people are arguing for minorities living in rich neighborhoods full of resources, and if you think even a significant amount of all the eligible students of color applying to college this year live there, you have your head farther up your ass than I thought. Those mostly black, mostly hispanic, etc. neighborhoods, are for the most part, not even comparable to your typical mostly white suburb. I'm sure I don't have to list example cities. So whatever, that's what I have to say about AA even though it's totally unfreaking related to what this discussion is about.

Shannon, Katz, and a few other compassionate people on this board are addressing the fact that indeed, we did work hard, and all of you (and others) think you can point a finger and before you even know about any of our accomplishments tell us we got into an elite college because our race. Tim, you more or less said earlier, that race gives minorities 100 extra pts on their SATs, and then you went on to give Shannon your seal of approval (as if she freaking needed it) and told her she deserved to get into Harvard and escape your criticism. But your above statement still stands, you're still saying race played a factor in her admissions, even if she was already a qualified candidate, and the fact is, she has to go through the trouble of listing her freaking stats for you to judge her by. If she was white and showed up at Harvard with you, would you drill her?

And what the hell is up with some white guy on the other board getting a 1410 and 3.7 GPA and a few ECs getting into Stanford and NOT getting any flack?? What, are the admissions officers suddenly stupid now? Is it impossible that he got in because he was interesting, and some minority kids got in because of the same reason? Any of you losers out there actually deans of admissions or something? I could care less if you think that AA being in place gives people the right to question every damn minority student about their right to be admitted. Banish AA. I could give a rat's ass.
But bear in mind your pathetic ploy to scapegoat minorities for a program they didn't even institute is beyond me. Your refusal to accept that there are other factors in admissions BESIDES grades is something you should take up with that white guy who got into Stanford as well as every damn minority you talk to (as you do now.) I, on the one hand, would assume to be privy to information on exact policies of admissions officers when admitting minorities and make the pompous and paranoid declaration that most minorities that get into college are mystically underqualified (having zip proof or weak proof based on shady acquantainces) and that it is such a problem that you have to get your underwear in a bunch everytime you hear one of them has been accepted somewhere. I congratulate that guy that got into Stanford, Shannon, and everyone else who got in ED because I'm not a sore freaking loser who thinks something can be accomplished by bitching and moaning at people who don't deserve. Tell those colleges about their policies, try and enact legislation. Something useful. But don't come up to me and try and freaking make me prove myself. GO TO HELL.

By Tim on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:37 am: Edit

Any discussion about bitterness, minorities, and college admissions is going to become a discussion about AA. I am not bitter about minorities getting into college, I am bitter about the extra advantage given to them for invalid reasons.

I think race was NOT a factor in Shannon's admission. She had amazing stats that, I think, would have gotten her in if she was white or if there was no AA. No, I'm not an admissions officer, but that's just my guess or opinion. And no, she doesn't need my seal of approval, but I wanted to congratulate her and point out that I wasn't arguing against her admission to Harvard.

I've also never asked anyone to post stats to prove themselves. I think, out of curiosity, I've only asked one person total on this board to post their stats, and he was Asian anyway.

"And what the hell is up with some white guy on the other board getting a 1410 and 3.7 GPA and a few ECs getting into Stanford and NOT getting any flack???"

Because he did not receive an automatic advantage because he was white. He had excellent essays or recommendations. If AA was gone, I wouldn't say anything about a URM with the same stats getting in, because with no AA then they would have had to have excellent essays or recommendations. I don't believe being a minority automatically makes a person interesting, nor am I denying that minorities, even most of them admitted with a great deal of "assistance" from AA, don't work hard. I think it is unfair that Asians or Whites have to work harder to receive equal consideration.

I accept, and even agree, that there should be factors in admissions besides straight grades and scores. I do not think that race should be one of them.

"But bear in mind your pathetic ploy to scapegoat minorities for a program they didn't even institute is beyond me."

You should read sometime some of the theories on AA as a method used by the racists in government to keep minorities down. They're a bit out there, and I don't really advocate them, but they are interesting.


By frumpylaundry on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:45 am: Edit

Ha, i would like to reiterate South Carolinan[sic] male's point, dear god, what has this society turned into. I like Ace Hardware, but because I have one tooth, doesnt mean i am a peach. You guys are all nuts. Here is a curse word "••••" that you all may have not used yet to degrade each other. I think that the really minority here is you all. Everyone else is busy trying to get into colleges that they like while you all bitch about them. And don't deny it. I see it. Power to the underpriviledged Alaskans! They should all get into Harvark, or Stale, or Princesston, or Columbuma, or wherever. Im with that guy from south carolina, go to tech school you nuts.

By tastyape on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:48 am: Edit

What would Jack Kerouac say to all of this? He would not call it "Beat" that is for sure. I bet Ginsberg would have a field day with you preppy-middleclass-highscoring(but maybe lying) loonies. Take that on the road, diva or tim or whoever you are.

By wutangcruzer on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:49 am: Edit

AA, what is that, Alchies Anonomous, you guys are insane. Purple fruit loop.

By cottonpicker4u on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:50 am: Edit

Cotton would solve all

By Tim on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 02:35 am: Edit

Mr. Laundry:

Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg wouldn't say much about this, being dead. They also went to Columbia, in the Ivy League. Ginsberg was kicked out though, and Kerouac dropped out.

Highscoring - Yes
Middle Class - Yes
Lying - No
Preppy - No

Nevertheless, I admire you greatly for your brilliant non sequitur.


By demosthenes on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:45 am: Edit

It is really pathetic how people feel so insecure about rising minorities in this country. You find the need to study for a test that will get you into a good university. Think about it though? How will the SAT's help you when you are facing a decision in any type of real ambient world? It is obvious the analogies are going to help you solve marital problems and those math reasoning questions will give you a better insight of life? I'm a mexican native. I learned how to speak english at the age of 12, and I am now seventeen. I live in a city that is majorily hipanic and that often lacks many cultural values. Nevertheless, it is really (unfair is not the proper word) pathetic how people can think someone got into a good college because of their race. LOSERS!!!!! Everybody in this country is an immigrant, whether you like it or not. Why should I brag about a meaningless test score when it is obvious that knowledge is nothing if arrogance controls you. Those who have these traits will eventualy take a fall and find out what is really important. What comes up, must come down. I'm 100% sure this insolent attitude will be refuted by future and present minority accomplishments.

By RamiroT on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:51 am: Edit

to dijaven

i do go to a ghetto hispanic school. i've only been in a white school once. for a day. so dont even talk about how i dont know what its like. i do know. my dad earns 12,000 a year and we pay 250 a month for a crappy hole in the ground. beleive me i know what its like.

By demosthenes on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:23 pm: Edit

It is pathetic how people fear the rising of a certain minority. Equal consideration? How come there was not any equal consideration in the 60's. What schools are doing today is not even 1% of what should be repayed to those who were discriminated. Yet, there is always going to be a constant fear of losing the grip and superiority of this country, so you come up with pathetic excuses about minorities' success.

By ... on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 03:47 pm: Edit

the fact still remains that many URM's with lesser stats are admitted to the good schools, where as someone else would not be. This is just a mere fact. It's not the case always, as I am 100% sure that many, a good number of these people had the numbers to get in.

By Shannon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 04:21 pm: Edit

As Gregon pointed out a few times, "qualified URMs are assumed to be underqualified."
That's why I think AA sux... no matter where you're from, what color your skin is, anything is possible if you just WORK for it.
They should take away both legacy and AA, and give the money to those who really need it-- the poor.

By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit

man what is up with divajen swearing and calling people names? Please, if you are going to say something productive, do so. Else, don't post! And reply to my previous post cause i seriously want to know why you think i'm arrogant.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:55 pm: Edit

I'm going to post what I'm going to post, and I'm going to continue to do it. I'm applying this year like everyone else and just because some people choose to insult people without using so-called "ad hominems" or whatever, and tell people what they do and do not deserve, I'm going to post back and tell them what ignorant jerks they are, minus the stupid and invalid ad hominems argument. There are plenty of posters on this board who have done so, what with that "dipshit" crap over there. Healthy body, that orginal post addressed to you WAS NOT for you. I mistakenly thought you and lalaLAMO were the same person. I apologize. But whatever, the fact that we disagree on several fundamental points doesn't give the right to tell what I can and cannot post. Unproductive, my rear. I could say the same thing about you. I'll address everything else later. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

By Tim on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Ahoy demosthenes (are you taking the name from Peter Wiggin in Ender's Game or directly from the actual historical figure?) :

"You find the need to study for a test that will get you into a good university."

I didn't study a whit for the SAT, for what that's worth.

"Nevertheless, it is really (unfair is not the proper word) pathetic how people can think someone got into a good college because of their race."

Is it pathetic to think something that, at least in some cases, is true?

Ahoy Shannon:

"They should take away both legacy and AA, and give the money to those who really need it-- the poor. "


Ahoy Divajen:

I have attacked Affirmative Action and your arguments for it, never you, and I have not tried to say what you deserve.


By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Thanks I now understand. And I was just trying to criticize the lame practice of personal attacks, not any arguements you are saying. I should hope you agree that telling people that their heads are up their asses is unproductive and haha, mean.

By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit

I've been out of college for a few years now, but it's still hard to see the stress and frustration that our imperfect college admissions systems cause. I admire all of you for discussing the issues raised here, because it indicates a concern for the effectiveness of our educational system that will hopefully drive some positive change. Even the (many) conflicts that have developed, when argued seriously and thoughtfully, may help us to better understand the many perspectives that must be incorporated into any educational reform. I hope everyone remains open to debate throughout the college process, and well beyond it, into the years when you can more actively help to improve this process.

On one of the central issues:
The minority experience. I absolutely believe that many minorities have financial resources or access to educations that meet or exceed those of the average white applicant. However, there are social forces that make it truly impossible for their race/ethnicity to *not* have an impact on their lives, whether or not they are consciously aware of it. In fact, since we don't change race over the course of our lifetimes, it is likely that minorities become accustomed to the issues they must face as such very early in life, so that those influences slip out of conscious experience. I want to point out that the influences they are subject to need not be negative--there are organizations and communities working hard to make their environments equally welcoming of all aspects of everyone's (majority and minority groups alike) identities. These aim at helping people to look at race/ethnicity as a great avenue through which we can learn about each other and build bridges, rather than discriminate against each other and divide ourselves. However, these environments are appallingly scarce. Every time a minority is made aware of the fact that they are looked at as a minority (and often held to some expectation or judgment as such), it creates an emotional and psychological issue that must be dealt with. For some, perhaps strong social networks and relative infrequency of exposure to these experiences make dealing with the issue less difficult. For many, repeated exposure to the stereotypes, questions about the degree of their minority group affiliation, questions about their legitimacy (for all those mixed people out there, especially), etc. can create a subtle, possibly subconscious anxiety within them about their own performance. Every test they take becomes an opportunity for them to confirm or disconfirm the expectations they know other people have about “people like them.” When those stereotypes or expectations are negative, even when the individual is remarkably skilled, the tension grows. Even if you’re black and a straight-A student, you probably have considered the possibility that a “bad day” for you, which might result in a B or C grade on a test, may be interpreted by some people as evidence that you really do fit the underperforming black student stereotype, because you know that many people won’t take the time to look beyond that grade to your exemplary history. Those people will be narrow-minded and wrong, but their criticism or judgment will still be mean and hurtful. People who are not repeatedly exposed to negative stereotypes about their performance ability are not likely to experience the anticipatory tension created by the knowledge of that possibility. That tension will never be a distraction, or a drain on their energy, and will not then pose a threat to their performance, while it is likely to be just that (to varying degrees) for many minorities. For more on this, read Claude Steele’s article “Thin Ice.” It’s his theory, and it’s empirically supported. It is one of the reasons I think that race/ethnicity is not irrelevant to an evaluation of a student’s performance. Of course, we hope to make more environments free of such indirect obstacles to academic achievement, but the pervasiveness of the current problem demands attention.

I do not think the best solution is to automatically add points to a student’s scores (and I sincerely believe that the best institutions do not do so—I’d need confirmation from the school before making such a serious assertion about their policy. Internet gossip spreads like wildfire and shouldn’t be disseminated lightly). I’m not sure I know what the best solution is, but I think just ignoring the problem because it’s not as blatant as seeing racial slurs on the walls isn’t it.

For the record, let me add that I believe the threat to performance caused by exposure to negative stereotypes affects financially underprivileged people as well as ethnic minorities, since you don’t have to go far to find someone expressing the opinion that “poor kids don’t really have a chance.” It’s an understandable opinion, but motivated poor kids hearing it have to deal with the stress of disconfirming that stereotype throughout their academic experiences.

This is crazy long, so apologies for those who’ve gone blind reading it, but I’ll probably post on some of the other discussion points later.

By Shannon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 08:19 pm: Edit

rosebud, thank you.

By Tim on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Unfortunately I believe that it's at least true in some places that scores are automatically added too.

Exhibit the first: UMich's AA, now in the courts, where, on the internal application scoring system, being Black or Hispanic was worth 20 points, which was worth the same as a full point on a GPA scale of 4.

Exhibit the second: MIT publishes a handbook for their ECs (interviewers), which besides detailing the interview process also has more detailed information on the admissions process. You can view this handbook here: http://web.mit.edu/admissions/www/educoun/media/resources/ec_handbook.pdf . Note that for underrepresented minorities, MIT says that "the Committee interprets their standardized test scores rather broadly," ironically on the same page that says "MIT does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color,
sex, sexual orientation, religion, handicap, age, or national or ethnic origin in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies,..."

Just two examples I have found. I think more openness in the Admissions process would help either to confirm or deny a lot of the accusations flying around about Affirmative Action.


By rosebud on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Shannon, thanks for the appreciation. Kind words seem to be a little rare on this board, and are all that much more appreciated. Thanks for being a good influence on us all.

Thanks for the info, Tim. As I said, our system needs improvement. People with good intentions have imperfect solutions to these complicated problems. I'm not a fan of the points system, but I hope it isn't widespread, and if it is, hope that we can contribute to finding a better system soon.
I’d still hesitate to say that MIT’s “interprets standardized test scores rather broadly” indicates any automatic adjustment, mostly because I really hope that what they’re describing is an awareness that test scores are not only a reflection of intellectual ability, but also the pressures, or lack thereof, that test-takers face, and should be understood with that in mind. As mentioned above, the stereotype-threat argument (that’s the term used by Prof. Steele in the article I mentioned) indicates that such awareness can help explain underperformance from students who, in non-anxiety-producing situations, perform much better. Hopefully, the non-SAT portions of these students’ applications will provide enough information to the admit committees to allow them to assess the degree of stereotype threat (or similar influences) that these students are under, and only adjust their evaluation of scores in appropriate cases.

However, applications come in a variety of shapes and sizes, so some are probably better at eliciting this information than others. It would be helpful for people to submit suggestions to the schools on ways for them to better solicit a detailed picture of each student’s life—for example, if one of the essays were “what are some of the pressures you’ve faced in your career?”, it might allow those people who are most regularly submitted to the pressure of negative stereotype expectations to express that to the committee. If another were “What are your biggest sources of support or encouragement?” then those who have lots of social support and recognition for their successes can say so, and help the admissions committee to attenuate their evaluation of the impact of stereotype threat on that student. Those who struggle alone, or nearly alone, can also say so, and hopefully get the consideration they’ve long deserved.

By Gregon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:51 pm: Edit

To Tim, You're awesome. How did you know that thing about Peter Wiggin!

To Divajen, I think you're confusing two different types of people. The first group are the utterly arrogant pricks (Now I'm slipping to name calling) who like to degrade and ridicule anyone with low scores (low being used in the broadest sense of the word, below 1200). These people who get their jollies by attacking the portfolios of non-perfect candidates are the lowest form of internet personalities. Crude, vulgar, petty, and mean spirited.

The other group are those, such as Tim and I, who are generally against AA and what it stands for. A "misguided" (as rosebud so eloquently but reluctantly put it) and unequal policy.

I believe the group you're attacking is the former who seem to target minorities more frequently because they can hide behind the protective voice of reason (us from the second group) and claim to be advocates of abolishing affirmitive action. However, these people, who you are inditing and name-calling, are bitter about their rejections and are generally just jealous and want to attack anyone who got in.

However, not all of the bitterness is entirely unwarranted as you believe. Some, not all, were rejected to inferior candidates. These few do deserve to voice their dismay over an unjust system in ANY MEDIUM THEY SEE FIT, which of course is this forum. Those who were treated unjustly have the right to criticize and review those who were admitted with less "qualifications" (which aren't just the "meaningless SAT's" and grades, but community service, clubs, interests, hobbies, sports, work, etc.)

I hope Divajen that you aren't hypocritically criticizing the right to criticize but merely the frequent and disgusting personal attacks that appear on these forums towards minorities.

By Gregon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:13 pm: Edit

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

By Shannon on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Gregon and Tim, wish I were an admissions officer... I'd accept your posts as essays alone. These forums seem to say so much more about a person than craftily planned out essays, I hope you guys get the good education you deserve.

By Valentine on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:43 am: Edit

speaking of demosthenes, we should start an "Ender's Game" chat forum. That book is great, and FYI, Ender's Shadow is just as good, if not better.

By RamiroT on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:47 am: Edit

To Shannon

I think the same too. The SAT doesn't give us a chance to express ourselves in our writing such as this forum does. (I can't pay for the SAT II)

and gregon I agree too with what you said. that some people attack minorities b/c they're upset and others because they were rejected wrongly. this AA deal is just like an abortion or religion theme. not so easy to fix.

oh and for the MLK Jr. quote.. I believe that this country is not yet where the great Reverend wanted it to be and we still judge people for their skin color; example AA.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:23 am: Edit

I quite clearly said OVER AND OVER, that I was sick of everyone trying to bring people down who were accepted into elite colleges, ESPECIALLY minorities, as it seems on this board. That's why I started this damn topic. But of course, you conveinently missed the point. As Tim so masterfully stated earlier, any discussion of minorities getting into elite universities involves affirmative action. Fine, regardless of whether people like Shannon and katz and any other number of people are up to par with their white counterparts, we deserve to have our achievements constantly questioned, and then after we've proved ourselves, you can sit on your righteous throne and declare us worthy of being in the same class as you.

But of course, you can waltz into Princeton and not have to explain yourself to anybody. Fine, blame it all on AA Tim, as if you're not really frequently exaggerating the number of underqualified minorities that get into these colleges with little better than circumstantial evidence. Scratch that. NOT EVEN circumstantial evidence. You included a flimsy example about MIT which was basically a misreading of the handbook. Well, ok, I concede. I SUPPOSE one could read it that way, but you could just as easily NOT interpret "broadly" in that sense. 250 pts on the SATs is far, far past pushing it. And overall, it was far from a convincing argument that on the whole, that AA is out of control, or that most minorities that get in don't deserve their spots.

So I hurled some insults, huh? Well perhaps it's because your callous disregard of the minority experience (which is different, whether you believe it or not.) You quite obviously have failed to grasp the idea that it is not all numbers -- you claim the minority advantage gives you more points on the SATs but how does that explain how all the white people that had SATs in the 1200s and 1300s with less than impressive GPAs get in? Their stats are littered all over this board. CLEARLY, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS. If the minority advantage translated into anything, it would probably adding to the diversity of atmosphere on campus. Wouldn't you assume the white student had some great talent to compensate for his low test scores? Yes, undoubtedly you would. Well, why not assume the same about some Hispanic kid that got into Harvard with an 1270, who volunteered thousands of hours at the neighborhood community center or was a brilliant playwright...the point is people never bother finding out.

In fact, people usually don't even ask for the test scores. Usually it's just, he's Hispanic and he got into Harvard, must be AA, that's it.

Who put YOU (Tim) or anyone else in a position to judge people's acceptances?? Why the hell should anyone give a rat's ass about what you think equals merit or not?? YOU AREN'T AN ADMISSIONS OFFICERS. I don't care if they had "lower stats" according to you. You don't just walk into the job of being Dean of Admissions, or an officer of admissions. It amazes me that you view the admissions process so simplistically that you feel you can gather a few meager numbers about someone and then tell that they didn't deserve to get there? How do YOU know what Harvard needs in a student? Almost every policy I've read says that there is no one single student profile, and that a multitude of factors go into the decision. A multitude of factors that you simply couldn't know about or even THINK to consider without their years of experience as admissions officers, time with that school, and many, many other things.

Yes, white are the majority, it would make sense that they are the majority in these colleges. AND THEY STILL ARE ON CAMPUS. Students of color are still the minorities on campus, but somehow it's still unfreaking believable that they got in there on their own. They are ALWAYS at the receiving end of this prove yourself to me crap, and YOU PERPETUATE by assuming most of them are underqualified off the bat, blame it on a program or not (but you are ultimately in control of your own actions.)

Hypocrite, my ass. I came here to bitch and moan about people bitching and moaning about minorities not deserving ivy league acceptance. But at least I'm talking to the right people, talking to people like Tim and criticizing them about crawling up everyone's ass and using AA as a cover -- saying basically, because I disagree with AA (which colleges don't even officially use anymore, as stated by their policies) and the fact that I believe AA still exists, I can take one look at the color of your skin or a superficial look at your "stats" and say that you app was inflated and had you been white you wouldn't have gotten in, wah wah wah, I get to do this because I believe a program that you're not even in control of still exists (AA.)

I haven't been arrogant enough to make sweeping assumptions about anyone that got into anywhere this year, white or minority. There are plenty of people who I was *surprised* about getting in, but in the end I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT I CAN NEVER REALLY KNOW, and that I know a lot less about a particular college and what its student body needs than a college admissions officer.

Their opinion is the only that counts, anyway. So fine, be content with annoying people to death. Why the hell can't you just drag yourself down to everyone else's level and just admit that you're a senior trying to get into college instead walking around like you know what merit really is. Your prententiousness makes me nauseous.

By someone who cares on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:37 am: Edit

Divajen, I would really appreciate it if you would be more considerate of the feelings of others and resort to more appropriate language. Your insults do not seem to be justified as people such as Tim and Gregon are trying their best to state their points without offending others.

Furthermore, the subject does not seem to be about people whining at this moment. Tim is not whining nor judging minorities--he is stating why he feels that affirmative action should be done away with.

Please mind your manners and understand that all of us here are also real people who have feelings and emotions.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:27 am: Edit

If I bring emotion into my posts, it's because I'm passionate about the subject. I think his posts are prententious. Nevertheless, the main point was not to offend Tim. I had a point, and I think I've stated it (many, many times.) Do the Etiquitte Police harrass everyone for posting their opinions? No, it just seems like those whose views they disagree with. There are a million idiots posting racial slurs and other vile things that I'm sure are much more offensive than anything I've said. And yet, do I see any of you going after them?

What is your aim? To detract from the point?? To escape the hard task of actually arguing the issue or at least giving your supported opinion -- but nailing me for 'netiquette' for a few harsh words (at least in comparison to a great many other people)? Does it seem rational that I would have started this topic if I had the sole aim of offending someone? No, I started it to voice a valid argument -- and I'm strengthened by the competent voices on this board. As someone actually going through the college decision process (I'm not sure all of you posting on this board are) other people's intelligent input actually makes a difference.

Furthermore, if your real aim was to get people to be more polite on these boards you'd address everyone, not just me.

But in hopes that you will leave me alone once and for all I won't use * ad hominems * (lol) or whatever your word is for it. However I stand behind my arguments and opinions, and * I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT* if you now stopped using politeness as an excuse to argue instead of addressing the issue.

By demosthenes on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 10:01 am: Edit

Wow Tim! Do you even know who Demosthenes is, when he lived, what he did? You should not talk. I attend a hispanic school that has very, comparison wise, VERY low scores. Don't lie, you did prepare. You all do. Probably since seventh grade. People like you are the ones that pretend to have complete control of this world. Wake up, you don'T! It's amazing that such an incompetent mediocre person such as You has read Ender's Game, and it shows it did not have an effect in your pathetic mind. It's a reality Tim, you criticize those different from you because of doing something. You are like Bonzo Madrid.

By demosthenes on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Hey tim, get it right. Valentine is Demosthenes, not Peter.

By Chris Smith on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 01:13 pm: Edit

For all the white people [ TIM, ROSEBUD, SHANNON, GREGON], especially poor white people who don't come from "historically competive" ( in other words, old use to be no blacks, hispanics, or Jews allowed) high schools, whose families have 2nd and 3rd generation alumni and had money to donate, how many of you get pissed when the average combined SAT score of Harvard legacies was 35% lower than for all those admitted, and legacies were more than twice as likely to get in. Why NOT remove the box to check for legacy? Let's not boost an application because you come from a "competitve high school"? Because it would take the advantage away from middle class, and most rich white kids. None of you would finance a lawsuit against institutions who "discriminate" on things of non merit value like legacy, and what high school you attend. But praise the center for individual rights when they financ eone against Affirmative Action. None of you would say it is wrong when the poor white kid didn't get in because the rich white kid had lower qualifications, but a well knwon father who has a well known grandfather, who built a legacy on cotton, who built a legacy in Dupont products, who built a legacy on the backs of black people. Why not get pissed? Because you are racist. And some of you may not even know it. We don't need Affirmative Action, but we don't need legacy, high school advantages, and Alumni donation boost either. What we need is for all high schools to have the exact level of resources. If your rich white school in Beverly Hills has G4 Macs at every desk, then the school in Compton needs to have them as well. But that won't happen because it might •••• off the white people when they don't have the advantage.

By Tim on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Alright, it's been a long time since I've read the books. I couldn't really remember but I thought Peter was Demosthenes because of the characteristics of the real Demosthenes (a rabble rouser.) Now I remember that they took names opposite to their own characteristics.

"Don't lie, you did prepare. You all do. Probably since seventh grade."

I don't lie. I've never owned an SAT Prep book. Once I paged through one in the bookstore, that's the closest I got. The thing I'd say "prepped" me the most was reading a lot of books throughout my life - since an age when I didn't even know what the SAT was.

Ender's Game is also a poor book to use as some sort of an argument against me, since not only was Ender chosen for his extreme merit without racial bias, but in the book intelligence was presented as hereditary. I don't see how Ender's Game is supposed to make me favor AA in any way.


By Chris Smith on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit

to add to my message:

To correct myself, some of you might say legacy is wrong, but your actions don't confirm it. The white communities actions don't confirm it. Minorites confirm it by fighting for affirmative action based on race, until affirmative action based on money, legacy etc. is done a way with. So Tim and everyone else I mentioned. Lets see you right more than one sentence about aganist this issue like you do for affirmative action. let's see you look up stats, and do research. I doubt if you will because you really don't care. It might help you a little. By the way, Notre Dame University has a quota decreeing that 25 percent of each class be children of Alumni. FIGHT FOR EQUAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR ALL K-12 SCHOOLS. Imagine, no difference in teacher pay, the only differences physically and administratively in k-12 being the school colors and mascots. Imagine it all being funded by the government and that if it were private, it could not be above or below the resource level of a public schools. Imagine if this were the law. WOULDN'T IT BE JUST SO FAIR!!! Imagine if the parents of blacks were never told they would be lynched for learning how to read. Imagine if they weren't toutured because they were not "staying in their place" by attempting to have the finer things in life. Imagine if black granparents 78 years old today would not look down while saying no sir and yes sir to a 27 year old white male. Imagine if the value of a black male slave was not dependent on the amount of children he could breed with women he was forced ( whipped ) to breed with, and whose value went down if the offspring couldn't work as long in the fields. Imagine if for more than 400years, this was the legacy of your family and race, instead of a legacy of generational successes, and higher educational experiences. Let me guess....All the white people would have overcame it by now. Neither Asians, nor Scandanavian, nor German, nor Spanish, and no not even Jews ( holocaust was horrible )indured "such for so long". My point being, you can't make up for this in 50 years.

By Demosthenes on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 03:33 pm: Edit

you got the point wrong Tim. i would like to apologize for calling you mediocre. Nevertheless, i'm not talking about AA. That's not my topic. Still, I can't see why you would call Ender's Game a poor book in this topic. anybody can have intellegence. it's the will to FIGHT that counts.

By rosebud on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit


I think it unfair to characterize people as racist before hearing their responses to your question about their views on legacies. For the record, I will suggest that you not assume you know the ethnicities of any of the people on this board, unless they choose to make it an issue themselves. You cannot make those assumptions accurately, and have not done so in my case.

Regardless, in response to your question on legacies, I view that information as far less relevant to admissions than race/ethnicity, though, like all aspects of a person's experience, I think that they should have be encouraged to make a point of it on their app if they feel that it makes them more able than they would otherwise be to utilize the resources universities offer. I've mentioned on other boards that a possible solution would be to eliminate checkboxes and instead solicit information on the pressures/support people receive more explicitly than they currently do. In that way, no one would be forced to address minority or majority group membership, but those people who have had experiences related to their minority or majority group status (or socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation, etc) would still be supported in making those experiences known and considered in their applications. Legacies would, then, also be able to discuss the experiences they've had with university-educated family members, and I cannot say that I think it is right to prevent them from making some assertion that those experiences helped to prepare them well for college. If they want to argue that they're better students, let them try to support those arguments. People should have the freedom to express all the things about themselves that they feel have brought them to the application process. I may not agree with their arguments, but I think we learn much more by letting people do more speaking for themselves than we do by making often misinformed assumptions about them.
Honestly, if any of this year's applicants could write their essays effectively and with substantiation on the topic of how to address the weaknesses of Affirmative Action, I'd certainly be surprised if the admissions committeee didn't appreciate and admire such work. Those people in positions to change policy have several immensely difficult problems to face, and would surely be glad to have informed arguments on the topic. In addition to showing them passion for a topic and the ability to write effectively, you'd also be demonstrating the desire to use your knowledge to improve our society. If many people wrote in with different perspectives on how to address the problems that minority, poor, and disabled children (with any others that have experienced unusual pressure or difficulties in pursuing education), our progress towards changing the system might improve rapidly. While frustration over any social system's weaknesses is understandable, imagine being someone in the position to influence admissions policy. Simply hearing that people are dissatisfied doesn't get you any closer to figuring out what improvements are necessary to increase satisfaction. If we just blindly say "Yes" to affirmative action (or similar) policies, we're ignoring the need to address the weaknesses of those policies that include the lack of sufficient attention to socioeconomic status. If we blindly say "No" to such policies, we're halting the considerable benefit such policies have provided to many, many genuinely underpriveleged youth, and ignoring (and thereby tacitly exacerbating) the need to give help to people that are, unfortunately, still living in communities that do not provide equal preparation for college to all.

I agree with you that we need all high schools to have the exact same level of resources, and to provide truly equal preparation to all students. I add that we need society at large to adopt this policy in every domain of life--truly equal treatment in commerce, in politics, etc. However, until we achieve this equality, something must be done for those people who suffer because we have not yet achieved these ideal environments that we all seem to agree are our goal.

We have to teach many, many more people to do their own analyses of their situations. Unfortunately, many of the people who recognize problems in our schools are not the students that attend them themselves. Sometimes the inability to escape from your environment prevents you from getting enough perspective on it to communicate about it to others. Those people need support. We have to teach them to recognize institutionalized disadvantage and damaging social pressures, then teach them and encourage them to speak up for themselves, and to have constructive discussions with others. We have to give them the ability to let people in power know whether or not their policies are working, and how well. We have to make sure we're not the only ones trying to address these issues. We're certainly not the only ones who are affected by them.

If we don't want the handful of admissions officers that exist to be making the decision without input from us, GIVE them input, and make it input they can use. If you believe in one change or another, give reasons for it, and suggest strategies. If you don't feel capable of making the argument as well as you'd like just now, make sure you pursue the best education you can possibly get and see if you can better express yourself when you're in a position to vote, or make policies yourself.

Please, and this really goes out to everyone, don't just condemn and complain. Many of you have offered well-expressed concerns, and I sincerely hope that you intend to continue discussion and consideration of your thoughts with others, eventually even with an admissions officer or two. I really believe that we can do so good if we take some responsibility for change. The simple fact that we all have access to the Internet gives us an advantage in seeking information and initiating positive change that most of America doesn't have. If we really want change, shouldn't we accept that we're in a better position than most to encourage it? I'm not saying we all need to give up our "day jobs" to become activists, but rather that focusing our efforts productively in the spare moments we have, and even incorporating our efforts into our choices of career, etc. can make the change we're seeking much more possible.

In all probability, no single one of us has a complete, flawless solution to the problems we've addressed (I know I don't). What do people think about starting a board to gather suggestions for admissions officers? Or suggestions on reforming/replacing/augmenting/finding more effective methods of addressing the problems that inspired AA?

By katz on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit

how about we start a new post since this one and the one titled, "why is everyone so bitter..." have so many posts. It takes too long to scroll.


By Chris Smith on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 05:03 pm: Edit


I, being an admission counselor, in the south I might add, understand everything you have said in your post. I mean I really, really, really, really undrstand. However, it is evident that people in places other than/where I have come from understand as well. While I do apologize for assuming you were white, I don't apologize for assuming others character as racist before they have a chance to respond to my post. By the time I had made it through the list of 82 post and various differnt post, I somehow must have gotten the names wrong. I'm sorry. On the other hand, if a person dosen't express, socially, intellecually, and statistically the wrongs of legacy, high school prefrence, etc. with the same zeal as expressing opposition to A.A, then he/she is subconciously or conciously expressing ideas of racism. Fo example. Where I'm from we take money from property rich school districts, and give to the poor districts to try and make up for lost ground. The rich districts are planning to file a suit claiming " We agree, that the poor districts need help, but if you take money from our rich districts, we won't have the money, to build the best facilities, to attract the best teachers, therfore not giving our kids more of what they deserve because we in the rich district expect more of our children than those in poor districts" In other words "most of the kids in the rich districts are white [statistically proven] with endowments and old money and can not afford to loose the edge in educational resources to poor districts because then the poor districts might attract the teachers that the rich kids say they are entitled to." I don't have to wait for a person to tell me that is racist. I don't have to wait for a person to tell me that this is a racist idealogy, not a prejudice ideaology but a racist, and a presume you know the diffrence because you are educated with a degree as I. I so much want to belive forums like this can initiate positive change. But THEY DON'T. Change comes through the financial capability to finance a lawsuit against an istitutions policy. Rich white people didn't have positive forums, they sued. And furthur moore, how long does it take, how many moore forums, discussions, speacials on T.V. Hell, at the institution I work for we figured out in 1996 that out 1600 high schools in the state, 74 sent nearly half the entire freshman class. 800 schools still have not sent a single student and were a state institution. It's 2002....03. The people with the edge seem to have made it clear that tey are racist. Of the 74 high schools mentioned most if not all were probably the last to desegragate. I still visit high schools who display confederate flage with know federally supported opposition, yet the schools are supposed to be encouraged. I thought this was one country, a team !! I have to go now, but I am working on a way to put pressure on the right people to force legislation to pass laws making in illegal to include high school and legacy prefrences for those states who don't use A.A. Maybe instead of starting another forum we could work together with this. It's obvious people are aware of the issue, but they obviously use conservative political commentary, where arguments work less as promotions of certain ideas than they do as defensive reactions promote undesirable ideas of their constituants.

By Daryl Sams on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 05:32 pm: Edit

This is a post I’ve already made about affirmative action…one of the recurrent (and wrong) ideas I am seeing promulgated in this discussion is an understanding of how AA really works, even at elite-level institutions that supposedly use holistic admissions practices. Anyway. Please respond politely.
Simply, the role of affirmative action is this: to create diversity in colleges and graduate schools. If this were a simple process, made up of solely making sure that EQUALLY qualified applicants were selected with an eye towards diversity, it would be nice. The reality is far uglier.
Diversity is propagated in elite-level college admissions through discriminatory policy and at the expense of our personal liberty. While there are, unarguably, equally qualified minorities who gain access to elite-level universities (for debate's sake, I'll throw around the names Harvard and Yale), they do not make up the majority of minority admits. On average, in much the same way that athlete recruits are ON AVERAGE weaker than other candidates, they are weaker applicants. They have lower average SAT scores (often glaringly lower) lower average GPAs, and less stratospheric ECs. What they do have is their skin color.
Much the same could be said of college athletes, who aside from their athletic prowess tend to be weaker in all aspects of their application than non-athletes; however, as we've accepted above, their athletic prowess is accompanied by intangibles that serve them, and the alma mater, well in the game of life. The same cannot be said of minorities; not only do they, on average, do worse academically than other admits, they go on to make less money and go on to lesser, although still impressive levels of success.

That is the chief argument of pro-AAs--that they are still successful and that schools like Harvard and Yale see the 1600 and 4.0 and array of 5s on APs and 800 sat 2s as merely prerequisites, and more, that such prerequisites start at the 3.7, 1400 board, 650 on sat2, level. That is disingenuous-what happens, with AA, is that minority admits with middling statistical measures of accomplishment take away spots from superbly qualified non-minorities; kids with, to borrow my own example, 1560s on their boards, 5 SAT 2s above 700, 7 APs of four and five, who have some level of proficiency in 3 foreign languages and are manifestly talentd writers, as well as being captains of Varsity sports. Such students, be they (the forbidden word) white, are accepted; however, they are also routinely rejected, at a rate I expect exceeds 50%. Were they to be members of an under-represented minority group, their acceptance would be a foregone conclusion. That, however, is less problematic than the fact that students who by an array of fickle subjective measures and harder objective ones are weaker applicants and nevertheless get admitted IN PLACE OF the superbly qualified sample candidate named above for one reason: the color of their skin.
AA represents top-down social engineering and is at odds with our Constitution and our dreams; the latter puts liberty firmly at the top of the priority list and invites bottom-up remediation of the problems that perpetuate the perceived "necessity" of affirmative action.
Who has more to gain from AA? My argument is that noone gains anything from AA. Literally speaking, colleges "gain" diversity. But then, I "gain" a car, should I buy one; the expense might be 20,000 dollars. Colleges don't, in a sense, gain diversity, they buy it, and they pay in the coin of liberty. URMs gain by gaining undeserved acceptance to a college in which they will be plunged over their heads. Who pays for that? The non-minorities whose places they are taking, and, ultimately, the rest of the student body by being exposed to a student body that is that much less intellectually powerful and engaging, if that much more diverse.
The elite colleges in this country (and I am perhaps speaking of the 10 or 15 most competitive: the Ivies, Amherst, Williams, Stanford, MIT, perhaps a few others) are the colleges that would see their minority enrollment plummet in the absence of affirmative action. Why? Because affirmative action creates a perverse domino effect: as Harvard robs elite minorities to boost their percentages from 2% to 7%, those minorities come from somewhere; that somewhere is certainly not the list mentioned above, which have although not identical but similarly stringent admissions standards to Harvard; it is a Bowdoin, a Carleton, a Claremont McKenna. Absent affirmative action, this tier of schools would have a healthy crop from which to each cull and compete for minority students. Present affirmative action, such students are sucked away into the whirlpool of the more elite colleges for which they are unprepared academically in at least a comparative sense, setting off an undulating wave which thereupon forces the Claremont McKenna's etc. etc. to pluck away their minorities from elsewhere.
So who pays for the gains of diversity? Non-URMS, and literally every college in America that has less stringent entrance requirements than the ones I attempted to list above. Colleges that still offer, if not quite the same kind of intellectually stimulating student body, by all means an equally well crafted education.
URM enrollments falling into the noise would, yes, decrease diversity. However, not only would liberty be saved (or what's left of it, in our current politico-judicial climate) but there might be efforts raised to address the glaring societal and economic inequities that create the perceived need for affirmative action. In short, good old-fashioned Socialist progressive bottom-up social engineering; working to fix the problem as opposed to alleviate the symptom.

Low numbers of minorites at elite colleges would provoke an outcry that would either change the educational systems in our country, change the climate of economic depression put in by a combination of cultural flaws (yes, I said it)and the US tendency to lock up anyone with skin color darker than a medium tan, or change, in part, the SAT, a system of testing as fickle and flawed as anything ever imposed on an educational system.

By anonymous on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Daryl Sams, which would you prefer the ivy leagues and the other competitive colleges to be: no minorities whatsoever or with minorities?

By chris smith on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 09:14 pm: Edit

My last post was a rushed one. Please forgive the errors. It's busy at work!!!

By Tim on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Mr. Smith:

"I am working on a way to put pressure on the right people to force legislation to pass laws making in illegal to include high school and legacy prefrences for those states who don't use A.A."

Why not make it illegal for state and state-funded schools EVERYWHERE to use high school and legacy preferences.

For legacies, I think that, on the whole, the average student who declares himself as legacy is probably better qualified than the average non-legacy. This is because the parent attending and suceeding at an Ivy is more likely to impress the value of education upon their children. I also believe, though, that this effect will be shown through higher grades and scores if the child has indeed valued his education, and the checkbox is a tool of unfair nepotism.

It also depends on how you define "high school preferences." If you mean an automatic bias given towards applicants from a certain high school, that is wrong. If you mean that more students from certain high schools get in, due to the higher quality of education, and that your law would punish these high quality schools and the well-qualified students applying from them, I say your law is wrong. Just like the current AA, it would be an attempt to balance out unfairness with more unfairness, which will just hurt and enrage more people.

As a side note, I believe that some high schools will always be better than others, and this is a good thing. If, as a nation, we did not allow people to strive to better themselves from an average, we would be stuck at a very low level. Enforced mediocrity would be a horrible thing. I could go into paragraphs about this, but I'll refrain, at least for now.

"Imagine it all being funded by the government and that if it were private, it could not be above or below the resource level of a public schools."

I did imagine, and I shuddered. The restriction on private schools is an enormous affront to the rights which the people of the United States have held dear for generations. Are we to have a Gestapo running around, breaking into the vaults of private schools in order to redistribute their wealth? Would we punish parents who tried to donate money to a collection for new facilities at their private school?

Quite frankly, I believe that private schools which do not receive government funding should be allowed to do whatever they want. If this is to try and educate students as well as possible, exceeding the national average, they should have that right. If that is to have prayer in school, that is their right. If that is to waste all their money on sports and provide an inferior education, that is their right, but anyone of intelligence wouldn't go there, and their students would fail in life. If that is to make a rule banning all minorities, that is their right to practice a moral wrong. (It is similar to how, under the First Amendment, the KKK is allowed to practice their right to speech which is morally wrong.) If a school did that, there would correctly be a huge backlash from the public, and if I was nearby I would join up with the picket lines outside.

From this principle, as much as I am against Affirmative Action, I am also against government action (beyond the loss of any public funding) preventing private colleges from using it if they want to. A private college should be allowed to exercise their right to decide who they want to admit.

I've gotten way off topic, I guess, my Libertarian politics shining through.


By rosebud on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Wow. Lots to discuss. This is gonna be long (but you all expect that of me now, I'm sure), and I'm not even going to get to everything right now, but here's a start. Without representative diversity at our schools, those who would get in (probably mostly rich, white students) would have even less contact with members of other socioeconomic levels and ethnic groups than many of them currently have. Learning about the experiences URMs face through books and articles does not does not make up for the lack of this kind of contact. Seeing intelligent URMs in colleges helps to begin and augment discussion among those in power (or soon to be in power) about the struggles that no one should, but that many do, still face.

Broad experience with minority students can do wonders to help importantly disconfirm stereotypes, and thereby help destroy of racism. If you read the Steele article I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, "Thin Ice," you'll see that even if minorities at the college level get lower grades, on average, than do their white peers, it it likely that social pressures are the primary cause, not any inherent lack of ability. Being underrepresented in the country is not a trivial circumstance. It can affect your performance when you feel in danger of being negatively evaluated, to a degree many majority group members never have to worry about. We must help to eliminate that implicit intimidation, or millions of bright students will never be given a fair chance to show the world the potential they have. Admitting them to college on the basis of holistic evaluations of their considerable potential to achieve despite their disadvantages is a start. Even though it make take quite sometime to eliminate the pressures that skew the scores and GPAs to create an achievement gap where there is not intelligence gap, I know that educated minorities achieve and contribute to society in countless immeasurable ways. Simply by providing informed perspective from non-mainstream backgrounds, or by introducing the many valuable ideas generated by non-Euro-American cultures, they contribute an irreplaceable component of education to many schools. For many reasons, their test scores and GPAs may not always reflect the intelligence, drive and determination necessary for them to persist in pursuing their educations, but those qualities are well worth encouraging when one realizes that they have impact in many more important areas of life than eventual net worth or test scores.

And, when most majority group members have more money, better educated families, and better social support than do most URMs, is it any surprise that test scores and GPAs in those groups are higher? It is certainly not that wealth and education are values only held by those majority group members. Not too long ago, over half of the white population--women, were also a group denied wealth and higher education. They, however, organized and demanded equal treatment, and have been slowly but steadily gaining it through the years. I'll bet that if anyone were to compare the early achievements of women as the first joined the workforce and colleges, they'd see that on average, they scored lower on tests and got lower GPAs than did the men. Anyone believe that this was because the female culture just didn't value education enough? That they just didn't care about it, and weren't working as hard? Hell, women are still trying to legitimize themselves as mathematicians, scientists and engineers, and there's still a performance gap, if you measure it by scores and GPAs. Does anyone really believe that we just need to help females learn to value education more to make the gap disappear? I'd say that they value education every bit as much as anyone else, when they're not encouraged, by lesser but still potent elements of sexism, or the institutionalized wage gap, or other social pressures to give up on achieving as well as men. We put considerable effort, over many years, into helping women to overcome these kinds of self-doubts, because they're damaging and demeaning, and keeping many women from achieving all that they can. We've succeeded considerably, but looking at the numbers of women in advanced math, science and engineering, I know we still have work to do.

I cannot see any reason that URMs or financially disadvantaged folk deserve any less patience and assistance than do women. Sure, for a while, they'll probably struggle on average, because overcoming the negative stereotypes of history makes achievement more of a burden than we realize. But if we acknowledge that even though women have not yet reached total score parity with men in some subjects, assisting their achievement (and yes, they were and are part of the diversity balancing act that colleges do) is not undeserved, and not without invaluable impact and growth of their contribution to society. Instant achievement parity is unrealistic--our society hasn't evolved far enough to have removed all the damaging social influences that once totally excluded URMs from schools, we can't expect those who are still affected by those influences to not still be negatively affected by them.

Hopefully, a growing number of various disadvantaged students will soon have the social support (like women have developed) to promote high, equal achievement more effectively. But they haven't yet.

And in the meantime, while so many of these students have to struggle with overturning the achievement trends catalyzed and reinforced by centuries of disadvatage (minorities, poor people, women, disabled students, etc.) let's not forget that their contributions in many non-standard dimensions of achievement (broadening extra-curricular activities, contributing experience-specific perspective and inspiration, introducing underrepresented topics of concern into higher education, the list goes on and on...) are often unique, inspirational and priceless.

By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 10:43 pm: Edit

You guys are all crazy. And quit insulting each other. We should give everybody in the world a gun and two bullets and whoever's left gets to rule the world. I read it in a book once.

By CornellGrad on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:36 am: Edit

Look...black, white, red whatever...anyone with over a 1250 is doing ok. Minorities who make it in with lower scores don't just get in because they're of a different color. It's because they offer something that the majority of other students don't...a different prospective. I went to Cornell and just graduated in May. I won't state my reasons, but I'm not for AA in its current form. However, I definitely feel their should be more URM's on all college campuses.

Another important point. Once you're at college, you'll learn to study in your first year...and it won't matter what you scored on the SAT or what your GPA was...it will be more difficult than anything you can imagine...if you work hard, you'll be successful. I only received a 1210 with a 3.7 gpa and graduate with High Honors and Distinction in Research.

To all the URM's who got into these incredible schools...congratulations. To everyone who didn't get into Harvard, Yale, Cornell etc., you'll have fun wherever you go...college is a great experience...plus, when you're puking in some strangers toilet during orientation week and getting layed at your first REAL party...you won't really care.


white boy Cornell Grad '02

By cornellgrad on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 03:38 am: Edit

more advice for you college bound folk...learn to proof read (my above message if full of mistakes).

thanks again

By Chris Smith on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Tim and others who think like Tim

You say "For legacies, I think that, on the whole, the average student who declares himself as legacy is probably better qualified than the average non-legacy, because the parent attending and suceeding at an Ivy is more likely to impress the value of education upon their children. This effect will be shown through higher grades and scores if the child has indeed valued his education, and the checkbox is a tool of unfair nepotism."

Tim....you agree with me that it's unfair nepotism but you either don't understand, or deny that it is RACISM. You see, unlike most white families, the parents of a 18 year old black male today would most likely be the first to ever attend college in the family legacy. The parents of a 18 year old white male today will most likely be the third to ever attend college in the family legacy. Sure the kid with the legacy will more than likely be more prepared (not the most qualified), but, he would be more prepared because you know as well as I know that during the time the black kids grandparents could have went to college, it was denied them by law, Jim Crow etc. Do you know why historically black colleges were first created, to abide by the law and provide education for all, just not the same type and quality as the so call moore deserving whites. To have a black and a white kid get the sam level of education would be morally wrong. Let's create schools just for them so that they can believe we care. [granted today, most of these schools have undermined the plot against them and produce highly intellectual individuals]. Even SAT's served the same purpose. The test was created to test the things that were taught in the white schools. Standard scores wore set for admissions criteria. White institutions figured that the if the black kids did not meet the score requirements, they were not breaking the law to keep them out of institutions of higher and better learning. How cool, abide by the law and keep the black folks disadvantaged at the same time. THIS IS RACIST. Today...Private, and Public institutions [most of the same ones who loved ideas of segragation back then] use legacy, higschool prefrence, and yes the same test to keep out minorites and abide by the law. IT's RACISM. It's like when white folks use to dress up in black face, comitt crimes, and black folks would be punised because the person doing the crime appeard black. Conning right!! They won't teach you this in high school because it might undermine this countries Thomsa Hobbs Like American sentiment and patriotism.
So with all this, how do you expect for the black kids folks to be in a position equal to that of the white kids to express the same values of education experinced over 3 generations as compared to 1? I believe A.A. provides a start for the 1st generation to spread the prcess and ieas down to 2nd and 3rd generations. It helps begin to break the cycle and the mindset.

You say "The restriction on private schools is an enormous affront to the rights which the people of the United States have held dear for generations. Are we to have a Gestapo running around, breaking into the vaults of private schools in order to redistribute their wealth? Would we punish parents who tried to donate money to a collection for new facilities at their private school? "

I say the united states have held Ideas of Racism for generations. The same generations that supported those private schools supported them to keep private rich and better oppurtunity from poor and especially black/hispanic folks. Especially the vey old ones. It's like "If we want to be racist, lets do it with our own private money, and not the governments, we've held that value for generations" But then again part of the educationl Ideaolgy of the U.S is to always promote anything the country does as only right.

Point being they would be doing a service. They would be TEAM players. "One nation under God" "Justice for All" Their is no I in team. Sure they could keep all the advantages, but hey the team needs you to do this for the sake of the team. Isn't that what you learn as a little child, teenager!! [they lied] Parents of poor areas would have no money to donate for new facilitis. Then what. Thats just to bad hugh??

You say "as much as I am against Affirmative Action, I am also against government
action (beyond the loss of any public funding) preventing private colleges from using it if they
want to. A private college should be allowed to exercise their right to decide who they want to

As explained above, a private colleges right could still be a racist right. Until we have equal educational oppurtunity, and equal resources from k-12, private sector education will continue to be a mask to hide racism. I think we agree that A.A.legacy,and high school preference are wrong, but you don't appear to understand the racist principle and foundation that created them and continue to strenghten the fiber of both. Until this is changed, the problem will always exist.

And Tim,again, I doub't that you or anyone like you would go to the same people filing a case against A.A. and critisize them for not doing the same against legacy.

By hey on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 09:10 pm: Edit

If anything, legacy is WORSE. I'd rather see legacy gone than AA, and this is coming from an Asian perspective!

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 09:22 pm: Edit

You know what, I take it back. I don't barr myself from using profanity. Tim, you simply refuse to acknowledge any other practice that supposedly promotes discrimination, namely legacy. At least you're not making as big of a deal as you are AA. No one has bothered to look into the statistics on it or give it more than a fleeting thought in their posts. Why?? Because it doesn't offer (perceptibly) a disadvantage to white people. So, everyone pretends like it's really not an issue. But, no, these damn minorities getting accepted into college, still composing only usually around 15% of the population are. Even if they're taking only a few of the spots, they're still our spots!! Oh, so there are a few, who, after jumping though fire hoops to prove it to us, deserve to be there (hey, wonderwoman Shannon!! Much respect!) but for the most part, they're dangerously underqualified.

Forget that a significant portion graduate with honors or the many significant leaders of color in today's world that attend these universities. No, no, just concentrate on pretending that those actually qualified minorities are a very, very small number. Keep pulling statistics out of your ass and trying to push people beneath you WHILST KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT THEM. Tim, you are such an sheltered, narrow-minded ignoramus, it makes me sick. That's the only thing I disagree with Shannon about. You come up with some misread stats from MIT that are far from convincing and are convinced you're God.

When I sit here and judge you for basically telling me that I'm getting into college because I'm getting an extra 250pts on my SAT score and knowing nothing else. At least I didn't come on this board knowing you were white and pretending I knew everything about you and why you would get accepted anywhere.

I don't even feel like there is an argument left in your posts, just one big cutting assumption about what people deserve, which is TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED. How unfortunate for you that you're wasting all of your time declaring that some people people don't deserve their acceptances to Harvard, when it's not going to get you anywhere.

How unfortunate that everything you do is colored by your greed and unwillingness to find any integrity or honor within yourself to just do your best and be content without having to drag anyone down.

By Gregon on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:17 pm: Edit

I take a day off to see "The Two Towers" and what happens? The average lenth of the post quadruples. Congratulations to all for making this the first intelligent debate about affirmitive action without (too much) repetition.

Shannon, thanks for the compliment but Harvard must'nt've seen this site :)

Divajen, I believe you decided to repeat what I had said about you. There ARE people who are so bitter and envious of people's grades that they do resort to racial attacks. Tim posted an excellent post on "backlash racism" where he listed several racist posts he found in response to AA. You keep saying that we're missing what this posts about. We know what you think its about. Its about insulting those who make racial slurrs and attacks, the jealous ones I described. However, don't extend those attacks to all people who are against AA, there are many logical reasons to be against it, besides jealousy. All actions are not the result of emotions. Don't confuse eloquent logic with pretentiousness, they are completely different things.

Chris, first things first, Shannon is African American with amazing credentials. You started by indicting Tim and I as white people which indeed is true. If you do want to make some more generalizations about my background I'll give them to you.

I am a white male from rural Appalachia. I go to a poorly funded public school. You know the type, people pushing each other in halls. Fights every day in the cafeteria. People even spit on the floors, yuck! I, however, do not consider myself in the least bit underpriveleged. In fact, my friends and I joke at the common misconception about "the poorly funded education system." A set of twins from a wealthy part of Columbus moved down recently. (In Ohio, schools are based on the property tax so poor neighborhoods get poor schools. Recently the Ohio Supreme court ruled this method of funding unconstitutional.) Their old school had crew, fencing, and a swimming pool. These activities are COMPLETELY unheard of at my school. I would estimate that about 40% of our school would think fencing involved hammering wooden stakes into the ground.

Furthermore, you hint at the hypocricy of those against Affirmitive action. We're willing to criticize one unjust advantage but not another, legacy status. Well, as I continue to remind people, don't make assumptions about people. I know all about Notre Dames legacy policy (I got the letter they sent out to the parents). I am a recently accepted Notre Dame legacy. I think legacy status is a ploy for the colleges to get more donations, nothing more.

Now you might ask, why am I fighting so hard against AA but not against legacy? AA goes against America. The word people frequently use is meritocracy. People rise based on merit. People rise based on education. People rise based on ability. Race is not an ability, it is a characteristic, and thus I am against AA.

Affirmitive action is a handout. It rewards nothing but one's skin color. Some might say it is a compensation for the past hardships that minorities had to face. A compensation? Is it a fair compensation? Lets look at various groups which don't gain the official benefits of this "compensations."

Asians - Read the history of American railroads. They helped build this country. They should get compensation.
Irish - They helped build this country as well. Another historically discriminated against group.
Jews - Holocaust, enough said.
Immigrants - My ancestors were from Slovenia. They were called names and worked in coal mines. Shouldn't I get the benefits for the hardships they faced?

So if Affirmitive action is a handout for living in current economic poverty then they should eliminate race and require the financial aid application. And if Affirmitive action is about racial discrimination that an applicant has faced then it should be described in an essay rather than assuming all minorities are victims of discrimination.

So isn't legacy a handout? Yes it is. But what does legacy status reward. It rewards past accomplishments. A society should be looking forward not back. For the same reason ancestral hardships aren't considered, legacy shouldn't be considered.

The worst part which nullifies ANY potential gain of AA, as I repeat all over the boards, again and again and again, is
"qualified minorities are assumed to be underqualified due to Affirmitive action"

For all of those who say "who are you to say what should or shouldn't be done, you're arrogance amazes me." We're allowed to express our opinions of what should or shouldn't be done. If you see you're friend is about to become addicted to crack cocaine, should you stop him? Who are you to decide what should and shouldn't be done? People are allowed to express their opinions and people are allowed to disagree. Nothing irritates me more than when somebody believes I can't have or speak an opinion. This is America people! We're suppose to have opinions!

By Gregon on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:34 pm: Edit

To Divajen's last post,

Divajen, what exactly is YOUR point. You accuse Tim's points of being meaningless when it is you who have resorted to personal attacks with no purpose. I read and will read your posts eagerly waiting for you to say something about something but your posts follow the same pattern.

"Shall I use profanity?"
"Tim's an ignoramus."
"He degrades other people."

I think you're having a hard time accepting the facts. Affirmitive action exists and people do recieve the benefit. Minorities do get an advantage. You assume that they all deserved to get in. A growing number assume that few to none of them deserved to get in. You don't seem to grasp that this advantage hurts qualified people and the qualified minorities. The only one it give benefits to are the underqualified, who you are adamantly defending. Tim's not degrading people (heck he's not even adressing it to them), he's telling the truth. Affirmitive Action is a painful realization to some accepted underequalified URM's.

Divajen, answer me this. Does a 1250 Hispanic deserve to be admitted over a 1600 Asian with perfect SAT II's? You seem to place this enormous faith in them. Fighting for the underdogs or whatnot. Some would fight for those who deserved to get in. The more qualified person who had greater achievements.

Who deserves to get into the best schools? The most talented students.

Stop attacking Tim, all he did was use logic which you seem to fear.

By Gregon on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Upon rereading, I saw that Divajen actually made an interesting point in her anti-Tim ramble.

Who deserves to get in? The university decides. There are no set rules. In my interview, I was told "Harvard could make a class of all 1600's, Harvard could make a class of all student-atheletes, Harvard could make a class all from New York."

My uncle told me about how the Dartmouth admissions officer said she fought hard for a student with less than stellar grades because "he rode rodeo." Is that what it takes to get into the best schools? Rodeo?

If not rodeo, then what? Scores? Grades? Sports? Music? Personality? How do you evaluate a person. We all seem to accept the standard mix of extracurriculars, scores, and grades but is that what an education is about?

Some argue that if all these other factors can be considered why can't race? Because by including race one trivializes the other categories. Who cares about your scores, you're an albino! That's better than any 1600. Congratulations! Race can't be evaluated. Race should not be a factor because it makes a persons accomplishments look silly when Race is used to evaluate. It's ALMOST saying that one race is better than another. It's ALMOST saying that one race deserves a better education more than another. It's ALMOST racist. But not quite.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:01 pm: Edit

I'd repeat my above post about telling people to STOP anything, but it'd be too long. So, for brevity, don't tell me to do anything, Gregon. If you're allowed to make your useless unsubstantiated points, people are welcome to attack them. Happy Holidays! (haha)

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:20 pm: Edit

And hey, who said anything about the Hispanic getting a 1250? What if he had the same credentials as the Asian?? The point is, you assume that just by looking at him, you racist SOB. He has to defend himself and give you his stats to get you off his back. He shouldn't have to. Who appointed you the Academic Standards police?? No one else seems fit to judge, just you. And who the hell says that those candidates that are supposedly underqualified make up the majority?? You have given no solid statistics to prove it -- just a lot of prejudice backwash. So my last post was an "anti-Tim" ramble, huh? Well all you've posted are anti-divajen rambles, and it's seems that you're a little angry about that. Who's the hypocrite now?

You claim my posts have no point and blahblahblah, and have gone on for paragraphs like that. At least I have been and have continued to accuse Tim of trying to act like God or some kind of admissions expert. Your tactic has basically been "Divajen, you're attacking...you're wrong..." with no actual evidence.

I started this board with the intent of voicing a valid grievance, and I did. If you weren't interested in addressing me and my point, you shouldn't have posted. But now we have reached a standstill -- we simply don't agree and that's it. And who should act like the biggest hypocrite of all, but you Gregon, who now resorts to commanding me to stop this and that. At least I concentrate on why I think Tim is being ignorant and close-minded.

You're the one endangering this so-called "land of the free," you idiot. I've said again and again, this is not about AA. This about you complaining to us about AA. And assuming things about us because of AA -- then saying if the program weren't in place, you wouldn't have to blame us. Hello, anger displacement!

Keep standing on your soapbox, you insufferable jackass, and commanding people to stop disagreeing with you or getting upset over the crap they have to deal with (which is what I was doing from the start) and watch me say or do whatever the hell I want. God Bless America.

By Shannon on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:24 pm: Edit

wow Jen, you sound so angry... don't let these people get to you. many of them are just bitter, and in the grand scheme of things, we'll see who gets the last laugh. i think you need to look beyond all this trivial $hit, just don't let these people upset you please.

By Tim on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:27 pm: Edit


"Tim, you simply refuse to acknowledge any other practice that supposedly promotes discrimination, namely legacy. At least you're not making as big of a deal as you are AA. No one has bothered to look into the statistics on it or give it more than a fleeting thought in their posts. Why?? Because it doesn't offer (perceptibly) a disadvantage to white people. So, everyone pretends like it's really not an issue. But, no, these damn minorities getting accepted into college, still composing only usually around 15% of the population are. Even if they're taking only a few of the spots, they're still our spots!! Oh, so there are a few, who, after jumping though fire hoops to prove it to us, deserve to be there "

Legacy does not offer any advantage to me. My father dropped out of college and my mother graduated from a college I am not interested in. So legacy will either be a neutral or most likely a negative force for me. Why haven't I argued against it as much? First, it's off topic. This post and others were started as an Affirmative Action discussion, and that is what discussion will center on. Second, just about everyone here agrees that it is wrong. I could being a post saying "Legacy is wrong and unfair!" and all the posts would probably consist of "Yup."

I don't think it has come to the point (or it may have gotten to that point then gotten better) where more than a few straight-out unqualified minorities are getting in. I believe that what is happening is that someone who is very well-qualified in scores, grades, essays, and resume may be overlooked in favor of a URM who is less-qualified in all of those areas. I also don't believe any spots are "ours" or anyone's, except where there are actual goddamn quotas (for minorities, which I believe is rare or even outlawed now, OR for legacy, which I think Notre Dame has), which are just disgusting.

"No, no, just concentrate on pretending that those actually qualified minorities are a very, very small number."

I never said that.

"some misread stats from MIT"

How would you interpret the phrase from MIT about their views on minority test scores? I'll admit that the 250 was way out there and it's probably closer to 100 or even a little less. It also probably doesn't come as a blatant adding on of scores, but more likely a forgiveness for scores that are too low. "This one has a 1250 and nothing else is overly spectacular, let's put him in the reject pile." "No, he's Black."

" telling me that I'm getting into college because I'm getting an extra 250pts on my SAT score and knowing nothing else."

I never said that either. Looking at your stats up top I'd say that you would have a chance at Stanford without an AA advantage. Although I have no idea what a "1500 SAT IIs" is supposed to mean. But, I'm no admissions counsellor so that's just my guess.

"just one big cutting assumption about what people deserve"

The assumptions (not just one!) I have argued from are as follows:

Assumption the First: Underrepresented minorities do not deserve special consideration solely because of checking off the color of their skin.

I believe you will find support for this in such places as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Dissenting Opinion issued by a single judge against the Plessy v. Ferguson decision ("There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."), and even in JFK's original definition of Affirmative Action ("affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.").

The first assumption also finds its foundation in another assumption which hasn't been discussed here as much, but I still present.

Assumption the Second: Diversity of skin color in and of itself is useless.

This one is supported mostly by my personal experiences. The people I know are interesting or boring people because of who they are, not because of the amount of melatonin in their skin. The Black people I know are not more interesting or somehow more valuable to know, just because they are Black.


By Tim on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Mr. Smith:

"As explained above, a private colleges right could still be a racist right."

Yes. And, believe it or not, I think a private college has the right to be racist if they want. They would be morally wrong, but just like we do not abrogate the KKK's right to free speech because they are racist, it is just as dangerous to abrogate a private college's rights to property and association either by forcing them to use Affirmative Action OR by forcing them to not use it.

"And Tim,again, I doub't that you or anyone like you would go to the same people filing a case against A.A. and critisize them for not doing the same against legacy. "

No, I wouldn't go to them. Nor would I go to people filing a suit against legacy and criticize them for not filing a suit against AA. Both parties would be doing a good thing, so I wouldn't criticize them.


By rosebud on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit

The fact that people can ask questions like "Does a 1250 Hispanic deserve to be admitted over a 1600 Asian with perfect SAT II's?" indicates a kind of alarming oversimplification of the admissions process. Do we really believe that the many talents and skills we all have are completely and accurately reflected in standardized test scores? No, they simply indicate something about your knowledge in a particular area. One's ethnicity and upbringing definitely also indicate something about their knowledge and experience in particular areas. Now, one can (and hell, haven't we all been doing this the whole time) argue that current applications aren't soliciting information on ethnicity and upbringing in a way that allows them to get a really accurate picture of how those things have affected a student's experience. I'm all for improving applications to correct this. Making generalizations from checkboxes just can't provide the depth of information necessary to make robust decisions about the influences/advantages/disadvantages that a student facess. But we need better information on those things, not NO information at all.

On the legacy topic...honestly, I've never heard a university explain their legacy policy, or the reasons behind it, and that, in an of itself, bothers me. They could be doing it because of veiled racist policies, they could be doing it for alumni donations, they could be doing it "cause everybody else is doing it," and all of those reasons also bother me. If any admissions officer can argue substantially for legacy admissions, I'll listen, because being open to new information (especially when we've been given none before) is important to me, but as of now, convincing me that automatic favoritism is justified is absolutely an uphill battle. I'm all for including information on one's family background and educational history in the application, with as much detail as each student feels is appropriate. If they don't think the fact that their parents attended the university has prepared them in any way, they need not mention it. If they think, for example, that they've learned through discussions with their parents more about the university, it's strengths and weaknesses, it's student culture, etc., and are therefore can make a more informed commitment to the school, then they should be free to say so, and be listened to.

Why must all applications be so simplistic? Perhaps Chris or other admissions officers can help me figure out why asking for more detailed information on a student (instead of asking them to simplify and condense their experiences down to a checkmark) isn't being strongly considered by the admissions community?

By rosebud on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:03 am: Edit

On the whole constitutional commitment to colorblindness--
I don't think we intend to really be colorBLIND. We're not blind (as a whole), and we do evaluate and react to the way that people look. We judge smoothness of skin, evenness of skin tone, sheen of hair, brightness of eyes, and yes, in some complicated internal process, these judgments inform our understanding of the person. We know that "pretty" people are generally seen as such, and that is an element of their experience that is less often part of the experience of people who are not widely seen as pretty. Now, being seen as a "pretty" or "ugly" or "fat" or "short" kid may have different effects on us all, but they ARE effects. We can't be blind to anyone's physical appearance, since it so totally pervades our interactions with each other. The point is not to be prejudiced by what we see. To not discriminate or harrass each other when we take in a person's physical appearance. To let them have the freedom to tell us who they are, without us making all the assumptions (or really any assumptions) for them. But we're just not, really NOT, there yet.

At the moment, the AA policy seems to proceed on the basis of stats that confirm the socioeconomic status of most URMs to continue to be a disadvantage to them (though to a continually lessening degree). As the situation improves (through programs like AA, who DO have considerable positive impact, if incomplete and imperfect), these assumptions become less correct, and policies should change to reflect that. AA is actually, by changing the socioeconomic and educational status of URMs, eroding the accuracy of the checkboxes, which were never descriptive enough to begin with. So there's need for change. But not away from soliciting information...away from check-"boxing" people into not-so-neatly defined categories (don't get me started on the many issues faced by multiracial students) into a more holistic evaluation system. Let each of us put forth what we value about ourselves and be evaluated from there. If all we value about ourselves is our scores, let us say so. If we believe other dimensions of our experience are as or more important, and can promote high achievement in college and beyond, let us make that argument. It's not about which assumptions are justifed and which aren't--we really can't assume race is or isn't important for an individual, when you think about it. It's about making as few assumptions as possible. If we want to know what they've gone through, ASK THEM!

Hopefully then, our democratic ideals will make sure that we listen to everything each applicant has to say without prior bias, and each applicant will have every freedom to give us something interesting to listen to.

By Divajen2001 (Divajen2001) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:11 am: Edit

Tim, what it means is an 800 on the Writing portion, and a 700 on Math IIC. I got a 690 for Bio EC but everyone around here usually just adds their math and writing scores. I'm sorry to have confused you by not being ticky-tacky. I marvel the belief that posting "stats" as you would write a grocery list for people to judge proves anything. I think rosebud provides a very solid argument for that point.

However, I'm still glad I'm "Tim Approved," you think I could have gotten in without AA advantage, by working on the virtually nonexistent info I gave. I'm even thinking of putting up an announcement banner on my website. "This minority has not only been deferred by Stanford, but proclaimed by Tim, a collegeboard.com poster, as qualified to attend."

But I have to put Shannon's post into consideration. Yes, I am getting frustrated, and no, it's not doing a whole lot of good -- although I am very grateful for the people on this board who are frustrated with being stereotyped as well and have related as much to me. Not everyone has ignored the issue.

Being black, Hispanic, Native-American, Asian, etc. does not just entail skin color but bearing that particular identity, where ever you are. It could be different in California, New York, the suburbs, the inner city...but it is DEFINITELY significantly different from being white, ANYWHERE. I think it is not totally unreasonable to evaluate that in applications. But even then...

Tim and Gregon - you're still excusing the disapproval of, let's say, a Hispanic with a 1250 or whatever...but you have not addressed the white guy with a 1250. Maybe he had some special talent, a great essay...etc. Why is this so hard to believe about the Hispanic? How would you know he didn't? How can you assume?

Just answer the question - who put you in a position to judge? Anyone? Really, what obligates Harvard to accept people that have lived up to your standards? What about students that have "potential" (or some other mystical quality) and prove themselves later, or any number of different situations?

By Getitright on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 12:28 am: Edit

Folks let get this straight. First off all, I'd just like to point out that given the volume of posts in this topic, an obvious conclusion is that "Race" is one of the most controversial and touchy issues in America right now. Recent events concerning Trent Lott and the Republican Party only serve to strenghten that fact. Just to note, many leaders have pointed out that Trent Lott is a representative of his party--that is, what he said is what the Republicans do on back roads all the time. In regard to this topic, it is fully clear that Minorities are and have always been disadvantaged in this volatile society. As much as many on the board want to claim that blacks and hispanics are taking spots from them, the truth is that these groups are STILL disadvantaged in the status quo.

The solution is clear: we need to FURTHER and CONTINUE affirmative action quotas on colleges nationwide to level the playing field for peoples of all races, colors, or creeds. Blacks and Hispanics deserve a chance equal to that of whites--and affirmative action is the best and ONLY way to accomplish this noble goal.

By Tim on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 01:09 am: Edit

"Really, what obligates Harvard to accept people that have lived up to your standards?"


"you're still excusing the disapproval of, let's say, a Hispanic with a 1250 or whatever...but you have not addressed the white guy with a 1250. Maybe he had some special talent, a great essay...etc."

Simple. Both the white guy and the hispanic guy would probably need some other factor to make up for their below-average (for colleges of the caliber we are discussing) SAT scores. For either of them, that could be essays, activities, whatever, but only the hispanic guy can use race.


Quotas are just disgusting, and WILL lead and HAVE led to the admission of flat out underqualified minorities or at best, leaving those spots empty if no qualified minorities are found. It sets up a "Minority Only" section of the school just as wrong as a "Whites Only" public school in the Old South.


By Chris Smith on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 02:00 am: Edit

I think Gregon said.....

"Affirmitive action is a handout. It rewards nothing but one's skin color. Some might say it is a compensation for the past hardships that minorities had to face. A compensation? Is it a fair compensation? Lets look at various groups which don't gain the official benefits of this
Asians - Read the history of American railroads. They helped build this country. They should get
Irish - They helped build this country as well. Another historically discriminated against group.
Jews - Holocaust, enough said.
Immigrants - My ancestors were from Slovenia. They were called names and worked in coal mines.
Shouldn't I get the benefits for the hardships they faced?"......

When you get to college if your not already there make sure you ask your professor to compare more than 400 years of being treated as animals,and 1/4 of a man, to building a railroad or being called names, or working as the Irish did. I know at some highschools [those who still wave confederates] they won't go to much into detail because they consider it a waste of time. Futher more as bad as the Halacoust was, I mean really, really, really, really, really, bad. The Jewish people have recieved reparations, the halacoust was not more than 400 years, and they were never considerd as only despensible capital with depreciative value. Also make sure you understand the difference between prejudice and racism. One is based on physical genotype, one is not. Also remember that A.A also includes Gender. So your white female friend/sister/mother may •••• you off in the future if your still upset about A.A. Gregon, If you admitted earlier that schools who use legacy don't need the money from donors, [which they don't] then why do they continue to use legacy...RACISM. Maybe you shoud accept that the possibility of your benefiting with the 25% quota for legacy at Notre Dame is far worse than the few benfits from A.A's look at hardship, ltr of rec., socioeconomic status,resume,rank,GPA, speacial skills, amount of school resources, and test scores, all within the context of race being a disadvantage in a racist society with one racist group (white) being the majority over another racist group (everyone else).


You're right the privates have a constitutional right to be racist, but because it's constitutional dosen't make it effective and progressive in a multicultral society. It only makes it more American. And being more American is obviously not working. In light of this a solution seems impossible until the ethical fiber of what "American" means is changed.

And by the way, the classes you take to learn about this type of stuff will not be a requirement because then you would be required to know the whole truth and that could be deadly.

Get education of experiences,not educatin for money, get wisdom and understanding, not ignorance and arrogance. This is the essence of a college education.

By Tim on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 02:12 am: Edit

I was just doing a little research, and I found an eloquent opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia:

"Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful
racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution’s focus upon the individual, and its rejection of dispositions based on race. To pursue the concept of racial entitlement — even for the most admirable and benign of purposes — is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."

Mr. Smith:

"And by the way, the classes you take to learn about this type of stuff will not be a requirement because then you would be required to know the whole truth and that could be deadly."

Which classes?


By Daryl Sams on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 04:29 am: Edit

Div, Mr. Smith...hopefully some other people looking into the wrongness of AA...respond to my post, I think that having read it, AA will no longer be defensible. But then again, we have this endless capacity to follow the wrong logic from the wrong assumptions...

By Gregon on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 11:04 am: Edit

Chris, first off are you saying that African Americans should be entitle to an education because of the incredible hardships of their forefathers? If so, then you're being hypocritical by denying legacy status. What you seem to be defending is that its alright to consider an event that happened 200 years ago but not an even that happened more recently. Holocaust? Reparations? How can you possibly pay that back. There will never be enough money to repay it. Never. The concept of Affirmitive action as compensation is ridiculous.

Scalia is my favorite Justice. That's a good quote Tim.

Please, stop accusing everyone who is against Affirmitive Action as being racist. It's like the McCarthy era. You're against my policies you're a communist. Replace the word communist with racist. Same thing. It's impossible to prove that in one's heart one has a natural hatred for another race.

Divajen, you keep saying you've clearly stated you're point. The reason I'm asking (not commanding) you to stop insulting is because I do not fully understand your point. I've even made a post in an effort to understand you're initial post that identified two very seperate groups of people (the jealous and the logical). For every one point/idea you make, you insult Tim three times. You seem to really dislike him when he's not made a single retaliation on you or your character. The only thing I've heard him say directly about you, is that you were well qualified for Stanford. You even attacked his complement.

"Guys, I just want to say that race is a very uncomfortable subject, but only by talking about it like we've been doing, have we proven -- just how uncomfortable it really is." - Andy Richter

By Chris Smith on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:10 pm: Edit


you said " Chris, first off are you saying that African Americans should be entitle to an education because of the incredible hardships of their forefathers? If so, then you're being hypocritical by denying legacy status."

I would like for you to go to "all my post" and paste my quote or implication of the above. African Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, blues, Yellows and Reds should all be entitled to "equal levels of oppurtunity to express the the same level of educational experiences". If you insist that legacy is for money, why do you equate it with hardships. One or the other. That oppurtunity in the U.S is based on the amount of money. In countries like Canada it's based on citizenship, and by the way so is health care.

A quote engraved on the walls by the founder of one of the souths biggest institutions "In the hopes that the truths and tradions of the confederacy shall stand" And it's a state institution. Futhur more actions and words are to diffrent things.

The classes

Mexican American History
Gender in African American Societyy
Asian American Perspectives
Race and Education
African Americans and U.S Politics

...and all the other classes that hide ideas that go against patriotisim and the good ol boy American way.

By Gregon on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Excuse me Chris, you zeroed in on one sentence. Should a college consider ancestral accomplishments/hardships? If so why are they only considering one ethnic groups hardships. I would ask my professor why we feel the need to compensate African Americans so much more than Jews.

He might respond that the Holocaust was in Germany and not in America, it is not our debt to repay. Our fathers and grandfathers fought their opressors.

So it isn't our problem? I'll agree we did sacrifice much to stop the Nazis (though the Holocaust was not widely known about) Well I wasn't in the South 200 years ago, neither were my ancestors. Why do you insist that its our duty to repay someone elses atrocities? And if you do insist that we should repay the atrocities then why not repay the holocaust? "400 years of being treated as animals,and 1/4 of a man" (speaking of which it was 3/5ths to be precise). Well in the holocaust they were treated below animals. One doesn't randomly slaughter cattle like they did to the Jews. So why aren't you fighting for Jewish compensation? Just curious as you indict us for not fighting against legacy hard enough. I indict you for only choosing to defend a handful of ethnicities rather than doing what's best for the country and fighting for ALL races.

And, the point the pro-AA people seem to ignore is that qualified minorities are assumed to be underqualified due to Affirmitive Action. (I sound like a broken record here, but I'm not getting any responses.) Well... What good is rewarding a race when no one believes they were accepted by merit? If anything AA sounds like a nefarious plot to discredit the achievements of minorities.

By Gregon on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 05:36 pm: Edit

And Cris, one more thing we've been talking about African Americans, what about Hispanics? How were they opressed more than Asians? And don't trivialize the hardships of all Asian Americans by labeling it "name-calling." You and I both know it was much more than that.

As I posted before, how do we determine one's ethnicity? With the increasing number of mix raced people in this country, we see that it is increasingly difficult to determine one's exact race. Should a half African American only recieve half the benefits of AA? Or should it be based on one's mere appearance?

(A little bit off topic... I think the point of the interview is to check to see if you lied about anything on your application, including race. And to determine make sure you're not a sociopath.)

By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

I read a study that beautiful people tend to be payed 10 (or more!) percent more in the working world. Should we offer AA for ugly people because they are at an economic disadvantage (haha)?

By Gregon on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 06:24 pm: Edit

LOL, yup it makes just as much sense.

By Healthy_Body (Healthy_Body) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 06:25 pm: Edit

GOD!! I spelled "paid" wrong. Sorry.

By Hopeful (Hopeful) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 08:40 pm: Edit

hey ppl, please start posting ur stuff into "continuation of....MINORITIES GETTING INTO ELITE UNIVERSITI", 'cause scrolling through 100+ posts is superbly, painstakingly annoying. THHANKX!

By miami on Thursday, January 02, 2003 - 08:55 pm: Edit

"Have you heard of a mostly hispanic,or even 50% hispanic upper middle class suburb? YEAH, NO. "

Yeah, we're called Cubans and we live in Florida.

Oh, and guess what, we don't support AA, and that pisses the crap out of all the black leaders in Florida.

By spiaj on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Most of you all need to get a load off of your chests. Life isn't fair. My ancestors were black slaves and Indians who had their land stolen. My boyfriend gets made fun of because he is Hispanic. Everybody has to take the shaft sometimes and for white people, maybe now is the time. The truth is that I dont expect for affirmative action to correct these wrongs. I think people see affirmative action as a hindrance in the admissions process and maybe it is, but it truly does help within workplaces, and maybe that's where it needs to stay. College is about learning from other people and their experiences and you can't do that if you go to a school with too many similar people. And when I say similar, I mean socioeconomically, ethinicly, religiously, and regionally. Perhaps they should go back to quota systems. I think this is the best policy. 25% of all college campuses could be White, Black, Hispanic and Asian (which would include native americans. Atleast that is democratic and covers the bases. Half of the student body could be poor. I don't know, but Im so tired of ppl getting upset. It's really not that big of a deal. If you dont get into Michigan cause ur white, then F*** it. There are many other schools you could go to and later transfer there. College and life are pretty similar; you have to accept the hand you were dealt and move on and sometimes life requires us to go to places we hadnt considered before.

By Entropy (Entropy) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

I consider myself to be an African-American who is progressive (in that I care about the condition and work for the progression of my community), but on this particular topic I would have to disagree with most. Affirmative Action is a condescending, biased and illogical policy that operates on the premise that African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans collectively, are academically if not intellectually inferior than their white and Asian counterparts and/or that we are so socially and culturally isolated, that we need to be included in a mostly white population for the mere purpose of adding some type of pseudo- cultural diversity. And when you have weak-minded undignified Afro-Americans who are so quick to join black organizations exclusively, or who are so quick to assimilate into white society and abandon all elements of their culture and identity, that diversity is non-existent. Theoretically, I believe is what has happened because even with the increasing number of blacks receiving college diplomas and high-position jobs, nothing has changed but a slight increase in statistics.

It kills me that people say “Now African-Americans will have to prove themselves…” this has happened since the emancipation of our enslaved ancestors. This is why many African-Americans go to historically black colleges because they don’t want to be stigmatized by the fact that race may have played a considerable role in their admission. The benefits of “white privilege” seem like a valid reason for affirmative action, but affirmative action is not a “privilege”, if anything it is a strategic tool to keep minority students from achieving at higher levels and by drawing attention away from the bigger problem: a culturally and politically biased educational system that seems to be failing a great number of students in this country. Although the physical chains of control have been unbounded for more than 100 years now, the mental and psychological ones still hinder the growth and aspirations of many, and an entire generation stands at risk of failure. When you have no support from your community and indulge in a culture that has no distinct identity or values, your goals are immediately destroyed by a lack of purpose. Contrary to popular opinion, not all African-Americans are victims to the absurdity of pop culture, though we should not look down on those who are.

By Benspinspace (Benspinspace) on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 05:37 pm: Edit

As a college applicant under minority consideration, I would like to state that I'm offended by DivaJen's offensive tactics. Her logic begins sound; yet I've never seen someone so contort a good argument into something so ridiculously stupid that it aids the opposition.

By Sonz123 (Sonz123) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:12 pm: Edit

As an asian, and not one of the crazy geniuses, I don't think I benefit, that much, from checking the ASIAN box when i apply to colleges. But i think that African Americans do, and i don't see why they shouldn't. I'm not exactly sure when affirmative action came to be (I think mid to late 1900s) so at the most its been in use for less than 50 yrs. But how can less than 50 yrs make up for more than 200 yrs of oppression? I understand why people are not so happy with it, but I think it is a greater injustice to deprive those who are that much behind and would gain a lot from it. Also, I think its dumb when people are like "but I know this black kid" because thats just ONE PERSON out of however many millions of black people in America, and in the real world they don't base laws on one person they base it on the statistics of the general population (unless of course the president sucks *cough*). In the end if they get rid of affirmative action they must get rid of legacy. (random thought)

By Jordana (Jordana) on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

This whole thing is stupid....And sorry to say this but just about everyone who posted here is a racist or very discrimative. The whole idea that looks define a person and their ability sucks. I am a blonde blue eyed female and i have experienced racisim and distrimination that you wouldn't believe. Since i was little i was always expected to be the dumb blonde, which by the way i am not. I used to live in Japan and my best friend growing up was an African American, i remember not being allowed to play with her at recess because all her black friends didn't want a white girl around. Since i was a little kid i have had really bad self-esteem, i thought there was something wrong with being blonde, being white and just about everything. However the truly sad thing is, is this doesn't stop at the playground, and it is not mean little kids doing this anymore. Nobody can define who has experienced racism. And it sickens me that any race has a antvantage over the other. If i applied for college and got in over an African American just because i was white, I would not go to that school. I think helping one race/s over others only brings that race down and only keeps racism going. If people stoped making race an issue with everything it would no longer be a problem. The people who get into a school or get the good job should get it because they are qualified and have earned it. Just becuase I have experienced racism doesn't mean i deserve anything more then anyone else. Everyone has experienced racism, some more then others but that is life. Everyone is catigorized in some way because if their looks. Whether you are Asian=smart....white=wealthy....African American=needed. Now take a hard look at those catigorations. Do they apply to you. HEY IF I AM WHITE, WHERE IS ALL MY MONEY!!!!!!! It is unfair to everyone to categorize then because of their outside apperence, and isn't letting someone get into college becuase of the stereotypes of they race...racist.

By Expnptntl (Expnptntl) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit

You can talk about this but I'll put more priority into taking a shower.

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
Administer Page