|By Varr (Varr) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 01:55 pm: Edit|
How does this work? I know its for minorities , but does anyone know more about it??
pls. explain thanks!
|By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
I'm not exactly sure how it works, but from what I understand, if you are a URM your SAT scores and grades don't have to be as good as whites or asians to get into many schools. A URM is an under represented minority, such as Latvian Orthodox, Hmong, Uzbekistanian, someone with the right skin color, or someone with a Spanish Surname.
Schools ask you to identify your race or ethnicity on their applications, and then they make the decision to admit you partly based on your race and ethnicity.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 02:08 pm: Edit|
Say there's a white guy and a black guy with the same stats. Who do the colleges pick?
Probably the black guy, because african americans are under-represented in most schools.
|By Warriorlax22 (Warriorlax22) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 02:11 pm: Edit|
i hate affirmative action. at princeton, being asian=negative action. b*tches.
|By Got2go (Got2go) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 02:26 pm: Edit|
I believe Hmong is considered Asian. Isn't that a URM at Princeton?
|By Varr (Varr) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 05:42 pm: Edit|
AA is optional isnt it? I mean when applying you can choose to check the box or not
|By Poseidien (Poseidien) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit|
Varr: yes, you can choose, but sometimes they can just tell by your last name. Asian last names are especially easy to recognize.
Warriorlax22: I agree. It isn't fair and as you said, being asian gives us a very hard time getting into competitive schools.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 06:13 pm: Edit|
No, affirmative action will not work against asians. Just like how affirmative action will not make a college choose a white guy over a black guy, affirmative action will not make colleges choose white people over asian people. You guys are wrong and ignorant of what affirmative action really is: a method to adjust for the education inequalities that various ethnicities suffer from due to socio-economic differences. Unless you guys are jealous that blacks, latinos, and hispanics are actually in college when more of your kind should be let in, then you can see that affirmative action is the only possible method right now to promote a diverse college environment.
From what I know, top colleges already accept a lot of asians. The ones they defer and reject they do so with good reason, not because they filled up the quota for asians already.
Being a 4.0 GPA/1600 asian will not get you in. People with lower scores and grades but with interesting experiences, essays, EC's, etc are much more viable candidates.
And warriorlax, it's your grades and scores that will keep you out of Princeton, not affirmative action.
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 06:48 pm: Edit|
But being a native american with a 4.0 GPA/1600 will. As the unconstitutionality of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program was made illegal with their point system for URMs (i.e. with identical stats except for grade point average, a hispanic with a 3.1 GPA would be chosen over a white with a 4.0 GPA)
Most of your argument is invalid Mzhang23 to what colleges actually do, despite what they may lead on. The *principle* behind affirmative action when Pres. Johnson signed it was to be on an individual basis (you can't not hire this worker just cause he's black), not of anything this massive until Pres. Nixon tried to apply it to entire ethnic groups and races.
|By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 07:10 pm: Edit|
I have to say, Mzhang... it's really easy to say things like that when you were lucky enough to be accepted. If you weren't, you would probably be singing a totally different tune. Not to take anything away from that - I mean, obviously, congratulations and all, it's a huge achievement - but still... try and be a little compassionate for those not as fortunate as you.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 07:30 pm: Edit|
A lot of top schools do not use the points system - they simply try to bring in more minorities to create diverse classes every year. Decisions at the top colleges are largely made on a case-by-case basis; there is very little comparing of people from different ethnicities.
And, no, Voigtrob, had I been deferred I would not be 'singing a totally different tune.' I'm simply saying what I believe in - that affirmative action is good, and that it does not negatively affect asians at the top schools in such a way that an asian's chance of admission is less than that of any other ethnicity.
There are a lot of asians, however, that do quite poorly in school, and they are the ones that often end up applying to state schools and other schools. At institutions where asians are underrepresented and affirmative action is practiced, asians do benefit from affirmative action.
People who decry affirmative action by saying it lowers their admissions chances as an asian or white are basically showing their own selfishness and saying that America shouldn't attempt to even partially correct the problems that have been plaguing its society for many years. If you want society to progress, I suggest you try and find some way to fix society's problems.
Furthermore, one cannot simply change one's ethnicity and not expect one's stats to stay the same. Socioeconomic reasons account for why only 73 blacks scored above 1500 on the SAT in 2003, or why they still make up less than 10% of the population of the classes of many top schools. It is because blacks and latinos would otherwise be so underrepresented at many institutions that affirmative action is used. It doesn't take a genius to know that Asians tend to have higher average SAT's than blacks - and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that asians are pretty overrepresented at the top colleges. There is not such a glut of asians applying to the top colleges that your chances of getting in are vastly reduced, as many people assume.
|By Nycneedhelp (Nycneedhelp) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit|
This is Affirmative Action in a nutshell:
Okay a long long time ago some people were talking and came up with this idea:
"Okay, there's like sooooo many of them complaining about civil rights outside!"
"So what do we do?"
"I KNOW! Let's give them (and other ethnic groups) an advantage [black/hispanic/native american], while at the same time, giving other ethnic groups [white/asian] a disadvantage!"
"But that wouldn't be fair to the other [white/asian] ethnic groups!"
"Who cares! At least it'll get them [civil rights activists] off of our back for the time being!"
"Fine, but this isn't fair...and It will come back and bite us in the ass in the end"
...And many years later, the U. of Michigan was sued...
...And even later...we are here today
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 07:46 pm: Edit|
That's why the points system isn't being used anymore. Top colleges know it's unfair to outright choose one applicant over another on the basis of ethnicity so they don't use the points system. Affirmative action helps account for socioeconomic differences and education inequalities among the lives of peoples of different ethnicities - colleges simply aim to create a more diverse class.
The UMich model is not used at any school anymore, but affirmative action in other ways still exists.
|By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 08:00 pm: Edit|
Mzhang: My post was only in response to "And warriorlax, it's your grades and scores that will keep you out of Princeton, not affirmative action.", nothing else. I wasn't talking about affirmative action at all. I don't agree with people who decry affirmative action because they were deferred/rejected. I was only responding to that comment - because people who have the grades and scores are often deferred/rejected regardless. You were one of the lucky ones (out of those who have the grades and scores) who was accepted, and I was simply asking for a bit of compassion.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 08:06 pm: Edit|
Anyway, since everyone is arguing about this...
AA is not fair to individuals, that is, the Asians or White people who got rejected so that a minority could be accepted.
But it helps the overall student population. So you lose some, you win some.
|By Alv (Alv) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 08:53 pm: Edit|
Just remember that compulsory acceptance of minorities is compulsory rejection of whites.
|By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit|
giving other ethnic groups [white/asian] a disadvantage!"
Disadvantage? More whites and asians are in colleges than blacks and other minorities. I don't feel at a disadvantage...
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 09:01 pm: Edit|
warriorlax, to me, seemed to be cursing princeton for lowering his admissions chances because of his asian heritage.
I did a careful search for warriorlax's stats and subsequently offered my view on why his chances were low.
Maybe he was just joking, but blaming a possible rejection on AA when one has rather subpar stats for any ivy seems pretty stupid to me.
|By Varr (Varr) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 09:20 pm: Edit|
You wanna know when this will all be over??
Heck you just wait till Hispanics, Blacks and other URMS wont be counted as minorities anymore!!(there'd be too many) and AA will be over.
Come on think about it!! Colleges cant have 100% whites!! Thatís crazy! and they cant have 2% blacks 2% Hispanic, of course not!!
thatís why minorities need to be over the 10%!! now think about it!! there arenít as many URM's with high stats so obviously the bar sometimes is lowered for us!!(Yeah Iím an URM Hispanic, since ill be moving to Toledo Ohio and ill be a us citizen so that qualifies me for URM status)
Yes it means that out of the big majority (whites and Asians) only the BEST out of them get into top colleges!!, and many times the BEST wont even get in since there is such few room for so many top students!!
|By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 09:31 pm: Edit|
I don't like AA, selfishly, just because of its possible reprecussions on me personally. However, I have to admit that even if I got into my top choice school, I wouldn't want to go there if it was 100% white... that's just boring. ;P
So like (someone, forget who) said, it can possibly suck for individuals, but overall it is a good thing - diversity is extremely important.
|By Tunan_Fish (Tunan_Fish) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 11:14 pm: Edit|
One has to admire your idealism, but I would expect more of a fellow Princeton '08. If you read books like "The Gatekeepers" or "Admissions Confidential" you will see that most colleges currently openly discriminate against non-blacks and non-Native Americans. For example, at Duke a formula is used to determine your admission decision. It goes something like this:
GTARE (G=grades, T=tests, A=activities, R=recs, E=essays)
Each of the components of your application will be rated on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the high score and 1 being the low score. For example, someone with a 1600 SAT and 800/800/800 and lots of 5s would probably get a 5 for testing. Or someone with straight As at Stuyvesant would get a 5 for grades. Makes sense so far.
Now, since colleges are academic institutions after all, it makes sense to weight the academic portions of your app (G and T) more than the rest. So now we have a formula something like this.
Admission score = 3(G+T)+2(A+R+E)
In other words, the highest score one could get would be 3(10)+2(15), or a 45. Duke, then, will set their minimum score for a NON-WHITE, NON-NATIVE AMERICAN app at some relatively high score. Say, 40. So if Lee Ping ends up with a score of 41; she's in. If Joe McDougal ends up with a score of 39, he won't get in -- unless he is a legacy or development case. Still makes sense.
Enter affirmative action. In "Admissions Confidential," Rachel Toor openly says that the minimum score for BLACK and NATIVE AMERICAN applicants is lower than the minimum for others -- for example, a 35. So now if a black or Native American applies and gets a score of 36, he will be admitted. If he gets a 43, he will be admitted. If he gets a 34, he won't be admitted -- unless he is a legacy or development case.
See the unfairness in this system? A white or Asian applicant with a score of 39 can easily be rejected, while a black or Native American with this score will almost certainly be admitted. A white or Asian with a score of 35 will almost certainly be rejected, while a black or Native American with the same score will be admitted most of the time. Basically, to me this screams:
White with 35 < Black with 35
or, Asian with 35 < Native American with 35.
To me, I think the big thing with AA is that we all can agree that diversity is probably a good thing to have at our college campuses. But "diversity" is something so amorphous that right now admissions offices around the country are using thinly-veiled point systems to give preferential treatment to nonwhite, non-Asian applicants.
The days when Jews were assumed to be smarter than most, or blacks to be dumber than most, are beginning to be tossed into the dust bin of history. I want *intellectual* diversity at college - an intellectual institution. Intellectual diversity, in my mind has nothing to do with race. Sure, you can say that because blacks are still discriminated in some parts of this country that they have different perspectives, but then you run into the case of affluent blacks who many "black leaders" condemn as being "too white," or the American Southerner, who finds himself the laughingstock of the rest of the nation. AA today is like trying to paint the Mona Lisa with a can of spraypaint -- right idea, wrong tool.
|By Voigtrob (Voigtrob) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 11:29 pm: Edit|
Good points tunan... it's somewhat ironic however that in all that, you made a math error... haha. 3(10)+2(15) equals 60, buddy. ;P
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 11:42 pm: Edit|
It'd make more sense to assume that more whites and asians also apply to the top universities. But the fact of the matter is that a 4.0/1600 black/hispanic/native american can get in any top university, but this is not the case for a white or asian.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 12:08 am: Edit|
Well, how many 1600 blacks are out there? If only 73 blacks scored 1500 or higher in 2003, how many 1600 blacks could there be?
To create a diverse environment, it makes more sense for colleges to lower the minimum standards - they have to.
Does anyone know if schools like Duke still use the numeric formulas. Last I knew from the Supreme Court decisions, basically all schools changed their admissions processes to not depend on numbers. Yale, I know, does it in committee format - an applicant is presented in front of the committee, and all committee members raise red or green cards, and depending on the responses the applicant is then put into a final pool for consideration.
In fact, Tunanfish, I am well aware of the admissions systems discussed in those books - I had a nice 1-hour chat with my college counselor about them, actually - and, from my understanding, the system is not in use at many of the top colleges after it was declared illegal.
Yes, affirmative action is a wrong system. It does not attack the root of the problem - socioeconomic disparities - while it tries to correct the problem where there shouldn't be one. However, we can only place faith in our government that education reform may happen someday, and that many more blacks and latinos will be growing up in environments that stress the importance of education and help foster a love of learning.
|By Tunan_Fish (Tunan_Fish) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 01:34 am: Edit|
Well again we're talking about what diversity means, and I think this is where most liberals get nailed. Tell me what you think:
When I say "intellectual diversity," I mean a wide spectrum of ideas.
1) Colleges should try to achieve intellectual diversity; a college is an intellectual institution and therefore intellectual diversity is desired.
2) In order to get intellectual diversity, we should admit a lot of people with different ideas + viewpoints.
3) Since intellectual is such a goal of ours, we should lower standards for some people who have interesting viewpoints.
I think most people would agree with 1 and 2, if not 3. The question is, "What does skin pigment have to do with intellectual diversity?" In one sense, the answer is "Not much" -- certainly race doesn't have much to do with one's ideas. But one could argue that black = discriminated = different views. I will accept this, but only for poor blacks. I think that if you try to take your approach of AA based on race, you run into too many what-if situations: are affluent blacks deserving of AA, when they overcame nothing? Should Iberian Hispanics or Portuguese get AA because of *their* background? I think that when you look at all these ridiculous bits -- that exist in the system of today -- you begin to see that the current system is flawed.
Plus, it often seems to me that the most oppressed person today in society is the white male: I'm supposed to be a racist and sexist who, at the same time gets no handouts. If you accept blacks + Native Americans because of their "diversity," what does that say to me? I have unique viewpoints. I am my own person. This is a slap in the face, to say that one type of "diversity" is better than the other. One thing that really infuriates me are these "Minority Student Weekends." Why aren't there any "White Student Weekends" or "Asian Student Weekends" or "Males in Engineering Weekends"? Because colleges like to hide behind this mask of "diversity" when in fact what they are doing is plain and simple preferential treatment.
With regard to the current use of AA in adcoms, I think one would be naive to think the situation is 100% A-OK right now. Michigan Law has certainly continued its unfair race policies, as they were not struck down in Gratz v. Bollinger. Berkeley is doing this to an even more ridiculous extent, as you probably know. After Bakke, Michigan Undergrad developed the point system. What makes you think that they're NOT going to use some new, more discrete system, hidden behind some facade of "comprehensive review." Come on. Look at the admission stats and tell me with a straight face that you think colleges have changed their ways.
And all of this goes without noting that AA is unconstitutional. I enjoy debating with people about AA; it is probably my #1 political topic and I completely abhor it. Right now I'm looking @ some stats and seeing if Occidental College is pulling something really sleazy . . .
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:03 am: Edit|
as for the numbers of blacks who scored above a certain number, the point I'm making is simple: if an ethnic group or race is doing poorly on a test, do you reward them above others until there is a level playing field? Are we all born equal or MADE TO BE equal?
Here's a Hypothetical Situation for you:
What if not one black/hispanic/native american made above 1000 on the SAT, but only 200 nationwide of them did make 1000. Should colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford select those URMs who made 1000 to go to their colleges, despite their scores being hundreds of points lower than everyone else? Affirmative action *hurts* minorities overall, because it teaches them that they don't have to compete with people equally. Is it unfair that men get paid $1.00 for doing a job equally that a woman only gets paid $0.75? No, it's not, but just because that's how the system is now doens't mean it shouldn't be changed.
Equality is blind to race. If affirmative action is ever to exist fairly, it must treat all races equally and boost people based on socioeconomic aspects. Why should Will Smith's or Michael Jordan's kids get the college benefits for race when they grew up in a life of luxury when there are inner-city white kids who grow up in poverty?
|By Caliplaya03 (Caliplaya03) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:10 am: Edit|
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but I dont really hear about people complaining about recruited athletes. I mean some of them score low on their test scores and their gpa's arent really the best and I dont really hear people complaining about that often. I mean schools should be diverse in many ways. Like gender,race,sexuality etc.... So i mean i'm kinda both ways on AA it's like I wont to get into a college because i'm smart yet I also want to diversify the college by any means necessary. So thanks everyone for reading my post I appreciate it.
|By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:11 am: Edit|
Yeah, people complaining about AA should be complaining about legacies and athletes.
AA is more justified than the both I think.
|By Caliplaya03 (Caliplaya03) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:28 am: Edit|
Ya i agree with you zephyrmaster, it's like people dont want to argue about legacies and environmentally challenged people. But once a URM gets into a college before the "majority" they flip out.
|By Fiachamp (Fiachamp) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:49 am: Edit|
"Yes, affirmative action is a wrong system. It does not attack the root of the problem - socioeconomic disparities - while it tries to correct the problem where there shouldn't be one. However, we can only place faith in our government that education reform may happen someday, and that many more blacks and latinos will be growing up in environments that stress the importance of education and help foster a love of learning."-Mzhang
Okay, I've gotta cook this beef. The above quote really makes me mad. You see, it will be damn near impossible for the 'democratic' government of our country to solve the problem of socio-economic disparity because of the govt's current state. 'The law of incomplete realization posits the priority of democracy over socialism.'Before you start getting to be so economically egalitarian you have to be democratic. Empirically, social democracy has come to grief due to its impatience to remedy economic equality. This effort causes us to resort to a power beyond all limits, capable of liberating the economy and establishing the social conditions for democracy. First we need to secure the strength of democracy in America. Its so damn weak right now...The proceduralistic American system of politics creates a so-called 'thin democracy.' Rousseau believed that 'the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free; it no longer exists. Patrick Henry further connected this issue to federal taxation: "I shall be told in this place, that those who are to tax us are our representaties. To this I answer, that there is no real check to prevent their ruining us. There is no actual responsibility. The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not reelecting them. This...is but a feeble barrier, when their personal interest, their ambition and avarice, come to be put in contrast with the happiness of the people.' Our 'representation' is so damn weak that our society is toooo pluralistic to destroy all economic barriers between ethnicities. The legitimacy of proceduralism was designed to reconcile Americans to their differences by offering them a way to live with them (Benjamin Barber), but now the self-interested individual becomes self-serving and self-consuming. Whereas the presidency was formed to be responsible to his electors, it has become the public forum for private battles; party, region, and private interests have outweighed his responsibilities. So the main executive of the country is both too powerful for himself, and too weak. Our government is too beauraucratic to be public minded, but it is also too personal and private to be effective.
So basically, there is very little possibility of overcoming the socio-economic barriers of our society unless some immense movement begins for a stronger democracy. Affirmative action is currently the only opportunity colleges have to create a diverse learning environment. Furthermore, socio-economic disparity would likely be better addressed by furthering the education of those ethnicities who have had less opportunity. Wouldn't you rather that they become educated and resolve their socio-economic disparity by their own efforts rather than some huge, expensive social welfare program? I mean, these 'genius' asian kids that are rejected by harvard but accepted by berkeley are still getting an excellent education. I think Affirmative Action is quite healthy for the country.
Thank you for reading my commentary,
Sorry if my logic or writing style seem choppy, but I was just really excited about this topic and wanted to type up my thoughts.
|By Caliplaya03 (Caliplaya03) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:59 am: Edit|
I agree Fiachamp a lot of info lol but i agree.
|By Warriorlax22 (Warriorlax22) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 04:25 am: Edit|
"And warriorlax, it's your grades and scores that will keep you out of Princeton, not affirmative action."
"I did a careful search for warriorlax's stats and subsequently offered my view on why his chances were low."
so with that brilliant analysis, you made the assumption that princeton's decisions are based on pure numbers. seriously, how did YOU get in?
but, anyway, you're wrong. asians are overrepresented. unless you put up some serious numbers, you're gonna catch a harder time than white people.
"People who decry affirmative action by saying it lowers their admissions chances as an asian or white are basically showing their own selfishness and saying that America shouldn't attempt to even partially correct the problems that have been plaguing its society for many years."
how is it plaguing society? blacks were enslaved. ok, but that was pre-1863. civil rights act was 1960's. that's four decades ago! latinos are just closely related to blacks. these people are far from stupid. no, the problem is that, on average, they're just the laziest people. the average race work ethic should not be accounted for.
asians are not smart AT ALL. if an asian kid didn't try, he'd fail. they just work harder than most, and colleges can't distinguish the line between intelligence and diligence. hell, i can make an argument that i want reparations for the chinese exclusion act in the early 1900's (1921, i believe). if i don't get that, why should the blacks get something from slavery? it's just stupid.
G - 3, T - 4, A - 5, R - 5, E - 3.5
would that get me in?
|By Fiachamp (Fiachamp) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 04:31 am: Edit|
I'm posting again...Get your pepsi and popcorn out...
"Here's a Hypothetical Situation for you:
What if not one black/hispanic/native american made above 1000 on the SAT, but only 200 nationwide of them did make 1000. Should colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford select those URMs who made 1000 to go to their colleges, despite their scores being hundreds of points lower than everyone else? Affirmative action *hurts* minorities overall, because it teaches them that they don't have to compete with people equally. "-Mattman
I don't think that would be the case. I mean, if some of these 'low-scoring' individuals were to be admitted to the college, do you think that there would be no competition after these individuals get in; they'll be listening to lectures and competing with everyone else who was admitted. Furthermore, its not as if these kids are idiots, I mean they are in this scenario among the best students of their background. If anything, their enrollment in a really great college should not stifle their competitive nature but it should fan its flames. Students don't apply to top-caliber schools thinking that they will not have to compete for acceptance, and, once they're enrolled, grades.
|By Quakerboy2 (Quakerboy2) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 05:28 am: Edit|
"these people are far from stupid. no, the problem is that, on average, they're just the laziest people." - WarriorLax22
Prediction - This quote is going to a lot of people off. I agree with the intent of this, just not the exact wording. Literally, you could think that if this was true, you could take a 45 year old Puerto Rican and compare him to a 45 year old white male, and the white male would have worked harder on average. Warrior, if that's what you meant, it's simply wrong. On the other hand, if you compare a 12 year old asian kid to a 12 year old kid of any other race, you will find something fairly impressive. The asian kid probably words harder, on average. Not in every case, not by a mind-blowing amount, but on average, there is a stronger work ethic in him (or her).
The reason for this is that the work ethic of a child does not stem purely from the internal motivation of the child. The culture of the parents play a huge role. Asian cultures stress hard work much more than any other, and, as a result, they acheive more in certain areas. Grades, tests, and musical talent are very important; therefore, many asians perform well in these three areas. If you look at the work ethic of asian children who were adopted by parents of another culture, their work ethic would be more similar to that of their parents culture. There is much more direction in those three areas given by asian parents. Unfortunately, they are exceptional here at the expense of other committements. Colleges like these three areas in general, but there are only so many 1600/4.0 1st violins that you can accept. To get diversity, you must look to other cultures that promote different ideals, and they will almost certainly not promote a 1600 as the best to hope for, so a black child might do an extra 30 hours of community service instead of studying for those SATs for another 30 hours.
Conclusion? Take whatever else you will, but my main point is that the culture of the parents also applies to college with the kid. Yes, they've become their own person, but the parents have had a huge effect. I believe that socioeconomic disparity is a lot of the problem, but there is a part of the issue that divides precisely along racial lines (with the adoptions being the only exceptions). AA is a good idea that could use a little modification.
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 05:28 am: Edit|
Yet one of the problems noted in the legal brief for the U-Mich case was that those kids who did get in thanks to AA typically graduated in the bottom quarter of their classes. They were not up to par with the other students academically and could never rise to the top because they were already in over their heads.
My hypothetical example was to explain that even if you are the best of your race, that doesn't mean you'll necessarily be able to compete well with others who scored drastically higher from other races.
|By Varr (Varr) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 09:39 am: Edit|
You all make excellent points!! both in favor and against,
but the main thing is that we should remeber that life isnt fair, and for some AA just screws them, for some (like me) it actually helps, But however I wouldnt like to know I got in just because of my ethincity, I want to get in for all my hard work and not just because of my race, I dont want to be acceted if I was just meant to be part of the 10th percentage of Hispanics at that school.
|By Varr (Varr) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:11 am: Edit|
"these people are far from stupid. no, the problem is that, on average, they're just the laziest people."
this is hard to say but IT'S TRUE, there arenít many Hispanics/blacks with highly academically achievements, but most of all I think that this comes from our own culture, you see right now Iím living In Mexico and Iím just about to move to Ohio so that quelifies me to be an URM, anyway here in Mexico in my state the average gpa is 76!! its a 2.1!! ! that is so freaking LOW!!!!
an example would be this my gpa how ever is a 97- 98 which is a 4.0, the one that follows me is an 88, and now think of all those that live in the US border states such as Texas New Mexico, California, and the other ones that are all through out the US. So Yes! most Hispanics are Lazy because thatís just the way that their mentality and ideas revolve around a world where they donít seek for the best but just seek to be conformable, most donít think about the future they just think about the moment, as you can see that leads many! into not even being able to reach such high scores or academic achievements.
come on tell me just how many Hispanicís or URM'S do you actually see in this board??
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 12:00 pm: Edit|
- i did say asians are overrepresented at any college. That's a good thing, since it shows colleges know that asian applicants are often strong ones and accept them.
- furthermore, I did a search for your stats, and I won't list them here, but many people would tell you that your scores are low enough that they would set of warning flags in any admission officer's head. You have fine EC's and all, but your standardized test scores are so low that any top ivy would be somewhat hesistant about admitting you. That is all the numbers count for. Maybe you should hang around the Princeton board: as I've said numerous times, all you need is to be in the "safe zone" with your scores and GPA (usually 1500 and 3.7+) and then the majority of the decision is based on your EC's, recs, essays, and whether the school thinks you're a match.
The GTARE formula was deemed illegal, and I am quite sure no school uses it now. The shift to committees in recent years has basically turned admissions into a courtroom, with one presenting the case and the others acting as jury.
As I've said before, having a 580 writing and a 1300 score will keep you out of Princeton unless you have some major hooks. Even URM's would have difficulty getting in with those stats.
- You also say that latinos are lazy. Well, I can tell you that by letting them go to college, their subsequent lifestyles are changed. Most latinos will continue on with the lives they are used to - not trying to improve their lot that much - while the ones who go on to college acquire a different mentality. That is the problem plaguing American society, that many black and latino families (proportionately much more than white and asians) are stuck in a cycle of poverty with absolutely NO WAY to get out even if their kids are smart and determined simply because there are too many obstacles in their way.
I live in NYC and have seen determined latino kids flounder in underfunded public schools - the same latinos, that if placed in an elite private NYC school, would be attending Harvard today and scoring just as high as his white classmates. An underpriveleged kid, no matter how smart he/she is born, has an extremely hard time rising up and go to stuyvesant HS or any other top school if his primary and middle schools are crime-ridden and underfunded and his parents unsupportive.
I went through a program designed to give underpriveleged minorities a chance to go to a decent private school in nyc when they would otherwise not have the chance. I have seen what education can do to change the people. If you're not going to change the public school system right now so determined minorities can get a proper education, then you might as well support affirmative action until a better opportunity for reforming the basics presents itself.
|By Tunan_Fish (Tunan_Fish) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit|
Also, given the case in which there were no applicants with scores of over 1000, I would say that almost none of them should be let in. Tough for them.
This idea that the SAT is a racist test is the biggest crock I've ever heard in my life. The math section asks questions like "Joe has 4 apples. Suzy takes away 1/4 of his marbles and then gives him 1/3 of his new total of marbles. How many apples does Joe have?" If you think a question like that is racist, you've lost your marbles. No one, given ample preparation, has any excuse to get below 700 on the SAT math.
The SAT verbal is harder, but is also relatively straightforward to prepare for. If you read enough and have an educated vocabulary, you can easily score over 600. You may say "where's the time to prepare" or "how can they prepare," but come on. SAT math is simple and could be done relatively easily even without looking at an SAT book. No one has any excuse not to be reading books or newspapers, or to be talking like an gangbanger all the time; no one will take you seriously where it matters im the world.
Lastly, just to continue to talk about this myth, if you look at any standardized test (the SAT included), the order of scorers will always be something like this: White and Asian, Hispanic, Black. It doesn't matter what the test is -- firemen training, police training, the GRE, CLEPs, or APs. So you can assume one of two things: every standardized test in the entire world is racist, or blacks + Hispanics are underachieving for whatever reason.
Just as a white with a 1000 SAT will likely be rejected from my school, so will a black, Hispanic, or Native American.
|By Enlightenment (Enlightenment) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 12:05 pm: Edit|
what's an URM?
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 01:03 pm: Edit|
An Under-Represented Minority. It is typically used to describe anyone who is not White or Asian. However, it could apply to a white at say, an all-black school.
|By Rewind2482 (Rewind2482) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 01:29 pm: Edit|
Why not have AA based on socioeconomic background, not race?
I'm sorry, I can't possibly have the words to argue with some of you here, but I also can't see how AA is not discrimination... Isn't the basis of it all "we're all the same inside"? How does your skin color affect you as a person?
I was a little irritated that a partially Native American kid in our school was being HUNTED DOWN by a few Ivy League colleges that I seek to attend. He had SATs several hundred points lower than mine, an easier class schedule, a lower GPA and class rank, and ONE EC. The kicker is that he isn't really in touch with his Native American heritage at all, he even admits that.
Erm... sorry, I turned a little angry there.
But my point stands... are we saying people of different races are different people? Thats the point that AA apparently tries to make.
And remember my counter for the "disadvantaged" argument: Make it AA favoring people with disadvantaged economic status, not favoring people with a particular minority.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 03:18 pm: Edit|
What you propose is a smart solution to improve AA. I'll have to research why schools haven't moved on to this method.
|By Varr (Varr) on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 05:57 pm: Edit|
Tunan you said
"every standardized test in the entire world is racist, or blacks + Hispanics are underachieving for whatever reason."
Oh come on you know the reasons, just thi nk about this where does Hispanics come from Mexico and latinoamerican countries, where does most blacks come from? well Africa and such, now think about this what do they have in common?? THEY BOTH COME FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!!, which certainly have a Lower level of education! there for you cant expect them to do as well as whites and asians that come from 1st world countries, Its just crazy to do so.!
Rewind you said:
"are we saying people of different races are different people? Thats the point that AA apparently tries to make"
Not different people just different backgrounds, since they dont have the same traditions, education, mentality etc.. So yes race does make you some what different
different= diversity( how to get diversity into campus)=AA
|By Fiachamp (Fiachamp) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit|
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit|
Ive said much on this subject, so ill simply copy & paste my arguements. Wait.
|By Alv (Alv) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 01:43 pm: Edit|
I personally disagree with Affirmative Action. I have always wanted diversity on campus though, but a diversity of opinion. Affirmative Action cannot and will not ever provide that diversity, because its basic assumption that by being black, white, asia, or hispanic that person brings something unique to the campus that a member of another group cannot bring is flawed. AA is essentially saying that because someone is black, white, asia, or hispanic that person is so different from a person of another race that he must be given different standards during the admissions process. I personally beleive that we are all the same, and I feel insulted that by being a white person that I am somehow any different from an asian, black or hispanic person. Futhermore, diversity of thought is a much nobler idea than diversity by race. Imagine going to a school where there exists freedom of speech, and that allows speakers from different veiw points to enter the campus and not be chased out by the students. Imagine going to a shcool and having Michael Moore and Anne Coultor debate and not one student makes a deragotory remark during the debate, and instead the students who disagree have a thought discussion with the two. AA will never acheive this, unless all black, white, asia, or hispanic people think alike, and that is certainy not true. There are many white people who believe in liberalism and many minorities who consider themselves as conservatives. The point is that we should judge the individual not the group when we make admissions decisions.
|By Alv (Alv) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 01:55 pm: Edit|
The second point against AA I would like to argue is whether or not it actually helps the people it intends too. I feel that AA does not help the people it intends to because by lowering the standards for admission less qualified students are admitted for groups that are favored and by raising the standards for non AA people more qualified students are accepted from the unfavored groups. What results is a competitive gap. The untold story of AA is that at the top universities, according to George Will, African Americans and Hispanics generally fall in the bottom quarter of students at the univeristy, and most if not all of the students who fail out of these prestigous universities, according to Dinesh D'Souza, are African Americans and Hispanics. What is really sad is that many minorities are "strongly suggested" by their universities to avoid hard majors. THat is why half of all African Americans with a Phd have it in physical education. Ask yourself is this program really helping people by putting them into a school in which they cannot compete with other students. It is the equavelent of placing a kid who belongs in algebra 2 into calculas BS in a sense.
|By Alv (Alv) on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit|
I wanted to say calculas BC
|By Varr (Varr) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit|
|By Sokkerdude4 (Sokkerdude4) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit|
AA is how our government compensates for slavery.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit|
I don't see any slavery in the US now.
|By Miakulpa (Miakulpa) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:42 am: Edit|
I know 2 "hispanic" kids who took FULL advantage of their URM status during college admissions. Neither of them were able to get PSAT scores high enough for national merit scholar, but they were both awarded the hispanic national merit award. (Mind you, I speak spanish better than both of them - they studied it at school because it wasn't spoken in the home by both parents.) Oh, and one is the son of a multi-millionaire. The second is the son of a mere millionaire.
I also know two black kids who have used their URM status to good advantage. Mom is white, dad is black. Both parents are well-to-do lawyers. Kids are not particularly bright, but have done well getting into schools with the help of AA.
I know these kids and I don't really believe they were intellectually deserving of the schools that accepted them. AA should not work this way.
You can think I'm racist or believe that I'm suffering "sour grapes" but you'd be wrong.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit|
The SAT is NOT racist in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM (although every once in a while, a math question makes no sense). BUT i am PRO AA. Ill post why. Ive had this debate 1000 times but im willing to do it again since sometimes pro aa people may not make their arguements clear, as they let emotions get in the way. I however, used to be anti AA so ill be as concise as possible (or ill just copy and paste some old stuff!).
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit|
Anti AA people have trouble putting themselves in the shoes of others. I am pro AA because I understand that had it not been for my parents giving a damn about my academics (until i got into HS) i wouldnt be as smart as i am. However, mainsrteam afro american culture is in no way, shape or form academically oriented, which is the reason for AA. Over time (decades, not months) this shouldd change, but for now stop arguing against a policy that causes whites to have to go to "crappy" schools like Brown and Duke instead of Harvard.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit|
I was once opposed to AA, although I am black because I am Nigerian american and was raised differently from most black AMericans. But as I have gotten older and learned more about history and the development of negative traits in African American culture I have realized that there is only one person to blame .............. the white man. Well Im being slightly sarcastic, but the truth is that black culture and everything negative associated with it has to do with (I know youve heard this a million times) slavery, Jim crow, etc, etc and most importantly, unfair disadvantages. And it wont go away until blacks are given an "unfair" advantage to balance things out. You see, it is directly the cause of the system PREVIOUSLY imposed upon blacks that they do not perform well. Im in no way saying that racism now is affecting anything, im saying that the racism of the past has taken its toll upon black american culture, and thus AA and other such policies simply make up for that racism. Think about it, a group of people with limited access to education over the course of 300 years cant simply be expected to start performing on an equal level after only 40 years of freedom. Say what you will, but this nation is to blame.
And remember, the point of AA IS to change the culture. And NO blacks who "give no mind to school" are getting into good colleges on AA, it is those who acheive at a relatively good level and are likely to bring up other members of their race.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit|
"one "race" should not have to pay for the wrongdoings of thier ancestors."
Umm how are whites "paying". Why dont you look at these stats.
Only this many students at each of these schools is black. Whites are "paying" for nothing. They are only willfully torturing themselves by insisting that and underqualified URM is taking their place. When in fact, it may be the illiterate and bungling George Bush III. Also, most URM's are qualified, or the IVY graduation rate for black students wouldnt be as high as it is. Also, many foreign blacks are over qualified, but whites still choose to ignore that fact.
|By Varr (Varr) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit|
|By Sokkerdude4 (Sokkerdude4) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit|
If AA were abolished, I think we can all agree that schools like Harvard Yale Princeton would have little URM influence, if any at all. This just goes to show that more-qualified people are being turned away in place of these less qualified people who get in simply because of their skin color/heritage. This totally goes against the values of our country. Even Martin Luther King Jr. preached for an equal society and with AA, URMs are not judged on an "equal" playing field. They are judged not as individuals, but in relation to others...which should NEVER be the case in the USA...at least in something as important as education.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit|
The contention that it's "less qualified" URM's taking spots from "more qualified" whites is erroneous. Colleges won't take kids who aren't qualified to do the work...it would be pointless.
Colleges *will* take URM's from the lower end of the qualified pool--just as they will take some whites from the lower end of the qualified pool.
On this basis, it is statistically *easier* for a URM to gain admission to an elite school...mainly because there are so few in the qualified pool to begin with....but that's a different matter.
If you think that upper-class URM's don't experience continual discrimination or that having a diversity of experiences--including racial--to bring to discussions and the academic community isn't valuable, then you're woefully underinformed...ignorant, even.
Part of your mistake is in looking at education is a commodity poured into your [empty?] head by a technician as opposed to a process resulting from a synergy of the participants.
|By Peachieva (Peachieva) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit|
well said Thedad.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit|
Research has shown that, when working on a project, groups composed of the same ethnicity (e.g. an all-white group) get the work done faster, but an ethnically diverse group will often work slower yet come out with a better and more creative end product.
Verified by thousands of experiments and statistics gathered from large companies.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit|
People should be judged as individuals. AA is based on two racist beliefs. It assumes that all URM's have had a disadvantage. There are thousands of rich black people who benefit from AA. Poor whites are hurt by it.
The small proportion of URM in college is the result of genetics, not that they are disadvantaged. Even when blacks have a huge advantage over whites, most of them still cannot beat them in the SAT (Which is derived from and similar to an IQ test).
"In 1997 black high school seniors from families with annual incomes between $70,000 and $80,000 scored an average of 472 on the verbal component of the SAT, compared to an average of 487 for whites from families whose income was less than $10,000 per year."
It just isn't fair that those middle class blacks should have more advantages than the poor white (or asians) should get Affirmitive Action.
A good book to read which will explain all the details of it is : "The Bell Curve", by hernstein and Murray. It will explain the differences in intellegence among different races in depth.
|By May_1 (May_1) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 07:32 pm: Edit|
The mere fact that you use the Bell Curve as evidence makes your argument laughable, at best.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit|
I would expect AA advocates to experience a little nervous laughter right now.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
LOL. I borrowed the Bell Curve from the library a few weeks ago. It is a book filled with wrong assumptions, and psychologists today DO NOT regard it as a scientific book. There is no evidence of scientific studies done, no proof of laboratory work, nothing scientific, and is widely considered to be a speculative book based on the opinions of the authors. No basis in fact.
A previous poster said:
It assumes that all URM's have had a disadvantage. There are thousands of rich black people who benefit from AA. Poor whites are hurt by it.
Not it doesn't. Affirmative action does not benefit rich blacks and other minorities. Poor whites do benefit from preferential treatment in the same way that poor minorities benefit. I am a black male living in Long Island, my parents make over $100,000 combined, and I will NOT be benefiting from affirmative action.
The small proportion of URM in college is the result of genetics, not that they are disadvantaged. Even when blacks have a huge advantage over whites, most of them still cannot beat them in the SAT (Which is derived from and similar to an IQ test).
LOL! Where is your scientific proof for this??? The small proportion of URMs in college is a result of the fact that the M in URM stands for MINORITY!!! Minorities, including Asians, will always have a lower representation in colleges(except for historically black colleges, etc.). It is common knowledge that the SAT can be prepared for, and those who have the resources can score higher than those without, including blacks and other minorities. Your statement is highly misinformed and shows ignorance. The school I go to is majority minority. However, we have some of the top scores in Long Island(evidenced in a newspaper documenting percentages of students graduating, going to four year colleges, passing physics, chemistry, calculus, etc.). In my school district which includes 5 schools, we regularly score higher in physics, chemistry, and calculus, with more people passing the classes and the Regents examinations. This percentage is among the highest in Long Island. Oh yeah, those other 4 schools are largely white schools. So what do you think that means? It means that those who have the resources can and do do well. Genetics has nothing to do with it. We're all human.
Affirmative action not only benefits blacks, hispanics, and native americans, but also poor whites, women, and many types of Asians(many applications include subcategories for Asians). For those who don't agree with AA, do you agree with atheletic recruitment? How about Legacy status? We seldom hear those being criticized, yet they provide preferential treatment in the same way that affirmative action does. If a white person was applying to a HBC(historically black college), they'd get preferential treatment. Also, diversity IS needed on campus, not only diversity of opinion, but diversity in culture. It is only through learning about other cultures and experiences that we can say that we've had a well-rounded education. That's why we have anthropology and sociology. We learn about humanity, society, and culture. Part of that learning is through direct experience, which can be had on a diverse campus(which can lead to clubs and orgs being formed to foster these cultures, opinions, and beliefs).
Before someone criticizes AA, please learn what it actually is. Rich blacks are no more helped by it than rich whites. Not all Asians are in the same category, and Asian does not equal smart. This has nothing to do with genetics, contrary to the "book" The Bell Curve. Women, poor whites, and underrepresented states are gain preferential treatment. And before you condemn AA, think about how you feel about atheletic recruitment, art and music recruitment, and legacy status. They all give preferential treatment.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit|
Also, many racist groups like to refer to the Bell Curve, and propose that minorities are genetically inferior. So be careful when you cite references.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 08:10 pm: Edit|
also, if you are black, have a 2.1 GPA, 470 SAT, etc. you simply aren't getting into Yale unless you have some spectacular something. Affirmative action doesn't work like that. Colleges won't admit people that can't handle the work, whether they be black, white, green or pink. Affirmative action will not help you get in a college if you can' do the work.
|By Margitte (Margitte) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:07 pm: Edit|
I cannot belive how closed-minded some people are. To say that blacks and hispanics don't do as well just because they are "LAZY" is completely absurd. I am of Hispanic descent, and while I didn't grow up with Spanish being spoken around the house or tortillas with dinner every night or WHATEVER the stereotyped "hispanic" lifestyle is, I still grew up poor--food banks were a staple in my household for a long time when I was young. Do you want to know why I've succeeded? It's because I work hard, it's because I am NOT lazy. I don't have the most stellar scores but I'm more well-rounded than a LOT of the 1600/4.0 crowd--and that's what's most important.
Furthermore, blacks and hispanics do not achieve poorly because they are LAZY, and not because they are stupid--it's because they've always been told that they can't do it. I know this because my (hispanic) father has always told me that I shouldn't spend so much money on my education, that it's not as important as I think it is. He is more weary about the price than about what is good for me--because he has to be. Because he grew up in a time and a place where he was told he couldn't do it, either. If you tell someone they are something, they become it--I'm sure you've all heard that before. Culturally, whites and asians focus more on education; thus there is a higher rate of "smarter" whites and asians.
To call a race "lazy" without even considering why they are where they are in the first place is downright ludicrous, and I am ashamed that my fellow college-bound peers are willing to be so prejudiced.
|By Caliplaya03 (Caliplaya03) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit|
Well said I couldn't agree with you more Margitee. I hope you get into your school of choice.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit|
"I am a black male living in Long Island, my parents make over $100,000 combined, and I will NOT be benefiting from affirmative action."
It might depend on which particular school we are speaking of. If you had applied to the University of Michigan last year you would have gotten an additional 20 points toward admission.
Let me clarify this:
"The small proportion of URM in college" refers to the fact that the proportion of minorities who attend college is smaller than the propotion of whites(or asians) who attend college. Dam, still ambiguous.
(#URM College students/ #URM in US population) < (#Asian college students / #Asians in US population)
"For those who don't agree with AA, do you agree with atheletic recruitment? How about Legacy status?"
This topic really does need to be addressed. In my opinion, this depends upon whether the school is public or private.
Private schools can use ANY admissions policy they want, whether it be AA, legacy, etc. Because private universities are private property, all decisions are up to the owners (or in this case Administrators who have been appointed to rule on behalf of the owners).
Because public schools are funded by taxpayers, they must not discriminate based on race, sex, etc. For this reason AA is should not exist. Neither should legacy. Athletes who aren't qualified shouldn't be given special treatment either.
THe NCAA needs to change its policy and admit that its athletes aren't "student atheletes". As we all know, they are really professional athletes who are paid under the table by alumni, fans, and coaches.
"Before someone criticizes AA, please learn what it actually is. Rich blacks are no more helped by it than rich whites."
I am sure you are wrong about that. But if you were right about this, and AA was only based on economic status, I wouldn't be opposed to it.
"It is common knowledge that the SAT can be prepared for, and those who have the resources can score higher than those without, including blacks and other minorities."
A SAT prep book only costs $20. Even if a student couldn't afford that, they could check one out at their school or public library.
It is a common misconception on this board that minorities schools have less money that suburban schools to spend on SAT prep classes. Contrary to popular belief, most urban school districts spend more substatially money per student that suburban school districts.
"The Bell Curve" is a controversial book. It in no way has the support of a scientific conscensus. It does make many valid points, and is not "widely considered to be a speculative" as you said.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit|
orangeclock, I think we agree that if affirmative action is found to be wrong, then so is legacy status and other types of preference. I do believe that AA only benefits those minorities in "lower" situations, those in poverty. A black person whose parents are doctors or lawyers(etc.), make over $200,000, lives in an expensive area, goes to private school, etc. will not benefit from AA, as it's goal is to "level the playing field". This means that people who don't have the advantages and opportunties that the more well off population has can still have an "equal opportunity" at getting a good education, whether it be at Harvard, Cornell(YAY), Princeton, Yale, Stanford, or whatever. That's why in the back of college applications and other colloge material, it usually says that the University is an equal opportunity institution, supporting affirmative action.
It IS a misconception that minority schools have less money or are less academically rigorious than "white" schools. As I said, I go to a minority school and it definitely isn't a poor school. But then, I'm in the suburbs, and the news is replete with stories of the need for more schools and better resources for NYC schools, though that isn't for the majority.
I agree that The Bell Curve is controversial. When I said it is considered to be speculative, I mean that it is based on the authors' speculation or idea of why there are racial disparities in test scores and other areas. It is not based on scientific research or data, thus cannot be regarded as a scientific reference for the issue of racial differences. Once again, we are all humans, there is nothing genetic about the differences b/w the races in terms of learning and education.
But do you really believe that the racial differences on test scores is genetic?
|By Neo (Neo) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 11:47 pm: Edit|
Apparently, Cornellhopeful, he does.
|By Alv (Alv) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit|
Orangeclock you and I are pretty much in agreement. Are you a conservative?
|By Marinakitchen (Marinakitchen) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit|
Okay, I'm hearing a lot of people say that you can just give money to urban schools, and therefore, the minorities there will have the same opportunies as whites. Therefore, AA isn't necessary.
But let me ask you this, who made you a good student, the SCHOOL, or your PARENTS??
Personally, I went to an extremely well endowed elementary school, and some of the kids succeeded remarkably, while others soon dropped out of my high school. Why did I succeed? Because my PARENTS were reading to me at night when I was young, and because my PARENTS helped me do my homework in elementary school. And even when they stopped doing that long ago, I grew up in a family where education was valued. That's why I got A's...my teachers couldn't have done that on their own.
If you're a disadvantaged student with parents who don't care whether or not you get good grades, there's nothing that your rich school can do to help you succeed. Its up to the environment that you're raised in.
Now, when taking AA into account, and also cases such as "first generation college students", you have to start somewhere. And that should mean giving money to inner city schools and the like, but that doesn't solve the problem completely. If AA helps one individual to get a good education, then they will go on to teach the same education ideals to their children, and so on. Therefore, a new generation of families who value education will be added to their bloodline.
You could give millions to public schools, but in today's world, that's not enough. AA is here to stay, especially when we continue to have people like Orangeclock in the world.
|By Rubster (Rubster) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit|
alright let's set this straight. YOUR OPINIONS DON'T MATTER. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE ANYTHING IMPORTANT. taking 1 or 2 government classes in your life doesn't qualify you to make judgements on affirmative action. What the supreme court says goes. According to the last decision of the court, affirmative action is legal. Bitching about it isn't gonna do anything.
|By Rubster (Rubster) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit|
oh by the way
"The small proportion of URM in college is the result of genetics, not that they are disadvantaged. Even when blacks have a huge advantage over whites, most of them still cannot beat them in the SAT (Which is derived from and similar to an IQ test). "
dude you make trent lott look like martin luther king jr.
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 01:43 am: Edit|
Orangeclock and Alv are prime examples of why "conservative" equals "racist" in the eyes of many people. It has been my experience that sooner or later, virtually all staunchly conservative AA detractors will come around to siting, "The Bell Curve" and books like it. The arguments presented in these books only echo that which was said in the seventies by the likes of William Shockley, and before that, by others during the Jim Crow era---clean back, in fact to the earliest days of slavery, when it was unquestioningly assumed that blacks weren't even fully human---much less as intelligent as whites. Then as now, the argument was that presumed intellectual deficiencies were genetically determined.
The feeling of smug superiority is well facilitated by stubborn adherence to such beliefs.
|By The_Elop (The_Elop) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:05 am: Edit|
"For those who don't agree with AA, do you agree with atheletic recruitment? How about Legacy status?"
Um....nope and nope. I'm a lower-middle class white male....a member of the group probably worst hurt by AA and legacy admissions. I don't believe in athletic recruitment because college should be a place for academic growth, not athletic.
I won't be able to afford the expensive advising experts; all that I can hope for is that the $20 prep book will have an affect on my SAT.
|By Collegehelp1234 (Collegehelp1234) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:11 am: Edit|
I would say that it is foolish to say that there is no double-standard for admission to college. Colleges seeking to increase their "diversity index" or simply wishing to create a more ethnically interesting campus are giving preference to races that have, in the past AND today, been discriminated against and subjugated. However, the problem arises because colleges, by giving acceptance to an african american or latino or other ethnic minority, is denying an acceptance to a member of an economically advantaged race. I am against the current system of affirmative action because the system does not entirely look at whether someone was really disadvantaged; rather, how the RACE was disadvantaged. All systems are flawed in some way, from democracy to affirmative action. The reason I support some systems over others is because I believe that the benefits to society outweigh the flaws. In the case of affirmative action, however, I believe that a system of "reverse racism" exists: the flaws outweigh the benefits. Until a working system can be established, I believe that we are at a loss, whites, blacks, asians and latinos alike.
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:59 am: Edit|
Then you have the following scenario: A relatively prosperous black student with great test scores, GPA and ECs (Yes they DO EXIST---some of them are regulars on this board) applies to a top school and is admitted, in part because there are relatively few African American students of his sort (or any sort, for that matter) enrolled at the school. He is valued, not only for his obvious academic qualifications, but because he brings a diversity of ethnicity, viewpoint, experience, etc. to the school. Some of you seem to think that there is no reason to admit a black student with the view toward strengthening diversity unless that student is economically "disadvantaged".
Schools move to admit students for diversity's sake (and not just racial and ethnic diversity, either) every day of the year. For instance, the bright student who is an Idaho rancher's son is many times, much favored at an East Coast school overpopulated by urbanites and suburbanites from way east of the Mason-Dixon Line. Most of you don't need to have a picture drawn for you to understand how such a student might make for an interesting roommate, or classmate---someone with viewpoints and experiences radically different from your own, perspectives born out of a ranching lifestyle. Many poor white, "first generation" applicants, whose grades and test scores may not be quite as high as some of a school's more prosperous applicants, are also given greater consideration for admission, again because they bring an element of diversity to the table. Any of you have a problem with that? I didn't think so.
So why is it such a frickin' big deal, when a middle class, or even upper class black kid gets admitted to college, in part because of the diversity he brings? Notice I said, IN PART.
|By Shsjonb (Shsjonb) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit|
I think you are blatantly wrong about the resources available for SAT Prep. Your school might have shelves just overflowing with prep books but mine definitely doesn't. For the most part my white classmates are better off than me. They can spend a few hundred bucks on a prep course whereas I had to take money from the emergency family savings just to pay for 10 Real SATs. You think I didn't check the library first? Ofcourse I did. The best thing they could offer was a worn out, outdated, edition of Barrons that I had to wait two weeks for so they could request it from another library. You may think it's just peaches and cream but to me finding the resources was harder than taking the test.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:52 am: Edit|
Upper middle class/rich blacks are still BLACK! Black American CULTURE transcends income. With the exception of foreign blacks, blacks have been homogenized to the oint where almost none, in any wealth group take the initiative to do well in school. Therefore, even IF a rich black gets admitted (which is NOT who most AA benefiters consist of FYI), they are still breaking the negative cycle in black culture, and thus, should be rewarded.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit|
Skin color has been so important in America for hundreds of years, except it worked AGAINST blacks. The races, as a result of segregation developed habits which would help them get further in their environment. For whites, all doors were open, and thus they were able to acheive at all levels. Asians worked hard upon arrival and were able to become businessmen, lawyers etc. without too much prejudice. Blacks were completely cut off from that realm and thus took up "black" positions, the best of which they were permitted at the time were Atheletics, and acting, but there was always a glass ceiling. In this day and age the ceiling has been removed, but it is too late for blacks to simply assimilate. An extra boost is needed. Color blindness is ideal, but blacks at all income levels are too aware of their color, and unfortunately most still let it decide their destiny.
|By Peacemakeriv (Peacemakeriv) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:00 am: Edit|
uhh, if Asians worked hard and got their position, shouldnt they be awarded? if blacks didnt work hard and were looked down upon sometimes, maybe it's cuz THEY DIDNT WORK HARD???
if a kid at school doesnt do hw and everyone thinks he's not smart, maybe he deserves? and to give him more opportunity simply cuz he did not work as hard is simply WRONG
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit|
Say what you will, but with the vast majority of black kids NOT DOING WELL, who do they have to look up to? AND since their friends will be black, they most will fall into the same trap of there friends. Plus, youre post is irrelavant because black kids who DO NO WORK are NOT being rewarded. I hate it when anti-AA people make up situations that DONT happen to prove a point. If u want to prove a point provide something ON POINT. Not a non existant situation. Its the blacks that work hard, even thought there friends may not be doing so that benefit fromm AA, not blacks that dont do any work.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit|
Alv, I am a conservative libertarian.
"What the supreme court says goes."
Right, but their opinion changes quite often. And AA won the recent case only with a 5-4 vote. Nothing is set in stone.
"The arguments presented in these books only echo that . . . blacks weren't even fully human"
The book made absolutely no claims to this effect. None whatsoever. The fact that you would try to unfairly accociate "The Bell Curve" with these racists instead of making a valid argument shows that you have none.
"So why is it such a frickin' big deal, when a middle class, or even upper class black kid gets admitted to college, in part because of the diversity he brings? Notice I said, IN PART."
It is a big deal, both in principal and in effect.
In principal you are giving a person special treatment because of his or her race. People should be judged by their abilities, not some factor like race which they cannot control. To be only PARTly racist is not acceptable.
In effect, by giving the upper class black student a spot he would not get without special treatment, you are taking another spot away from another more qualified applicant. Perhaps the applicant who was rejected because of this was a lower class white student who actually had to struggle.
"They can spend a few hundred bucks on a prep course whereas I had to take money from the emergency family savings just to pay for 10 Real SATs."
There is no advantage to a student who takes a prep class over a student who self-studies with a prep book. If anything you will have an advantage with "10 real SATs" because you will be able to work at your own pace. I used this book.
"Black American CULTURE transcends income."
Most wealthy blacks I know live in mostly white suburbs. They have the culture of their white friends. That argument is BS.
"For whites, all doors were open, and thus they were able to acheive at all levels."
Thats a load of BS. Tons of whites had as much of a disadvantage if not more than minorities. More whites were able to bring themselves up than blacks because many were smarter than their black counterparts. One example of this would be Andrew Carnagie. He went from working in a sweatshop to the richest man in the US. This was possible because he was smart.
Many AA advocates try to argue that all races are the same species, and therefore there can be no genetic difference in intellegence, is wrong.
While they are certainly right about the first part, the second, there can be a difference in intellegence among different populations within that one species.
A good example of this can be found in a comparison of different breeds of dogs. All breeds of dogs are members of the same species because they can mate across breed lines and produce fertile offspring. This does not, however, mean that they have equal abilities. Everyone knows that greyhounds can run faster tahn poodles. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but on average greyhounds are faster. However, there have been psycological studies of dogs which have established that poodles are on average more intelligent than greyhounds. (http://184.108.40.206/reference/dogintelligence.html) The fact that these breeds are members of the same species in no way means that they have equal abilities.
Now for humans, the same basic principals apply. All races are part of the same species because they can mate with each other and produce healthy, fertile offspring. This does not mean that they all have the same abilities. For example, it is an undisputable fact that blacks are the best runners. In the realm of intelligence, it has been established that Asians have on average higher IQs than whites. Despite the fact that all races are of the same species, they can and do display different traits.
The fact that one race is on aveerage better than another does not predict how individuals of different races will compare with each other. For this reason, colleges must judge each individual seperately based on non-racial criteria such as grades, SAT score, ECs, etc.
We can expect that because on average certain races are more intellegent than others, there will not be equal proportions of each race attending college. In other words, you can expect that under fair admissions conditions:
(#Asians in college / # Asian pop.) > (Total White in college / # White pop.) > (Total Hispanic in college / # Hispanic pop.) > (Total Black in college / Total black pop.)
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit|
these arguments made by orangeclock are generalizations. Not all blacks are the best runners, not all Asians have high IQs. And why are we making whites the standard to base everything else on? One reason why many Asians do well in school is firstly that the various cultures promote success, education, and respect of elders. Also, education is the most likely place that Asians can succeed, seeing how few are in entertainment and sports. It is wrong to stereotype an entire race, because if you find someone who doesn't fit the stereotype, they are labeled as "different".
Affirmative action does NOT mean that if you're black you're admitted. This seems like a common belief among anti-AAers. Colleges have reputations to keep and want to have the highest academic statistics, thus they WON'T admit a person who can't succeed or a person who'll fail through college. A black person with a 900 SAT and 2.2 GPA will NOT get admitted to a prestigious college b/c they DON'T show potential to succeed. The athelete with the same stats will also NOT get in, b/c although they are an athelete, college is still about academics. The legacy with the same stats also won't get in. So you can't say that an unqualified black person is taking the place of a qualified white person. AA doesn't work like that. Also, people from underrepresented states have some amount of preference. This isn't a black/white thing. Also, just b/c you're Asian does not automatically put you at a disadvantage. There are different types of Asians, which is why the colleges have different categories(at least most do). There are more of some types of Asians than others, and these underrepresented Asians also could have some sort of preference. In the statistics used in The Bell Curve to show that Asians are smarter than whites and blacks, etc., they said that Asian means Chinese and Japanese. What about Indians, Koreans, and all other types of Asians? You can't just make generalizations about blacks, whites, Asians, etc.
Orangeclock, besides your own observations, do you have any scientific evidence that Asians are genetically smarted than all others, and that blacks are genetically the best runners?
|By Rubster (Rubster) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit|
this is so sad
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit|
"Affirmative action does NOT mean that if you're black you're admitted."
Of course not. But it makes your chances better. True, a college will not admit an applicant who it thinks will not be able to handle its courseload, but there is always an abundance of 'qualified' applicants. So in the end, it boils down to HOW qualified the applicant is. In general, if you're black, you don't need to be AS qualified as an Asian would have to be to gain admittance to a particular college.
"Orangeclock, besides your own observations, do you have any scientific evidence that Asians are genetically smarted than all others, and that blacks are genetically the best runners?"
For the first question, Orangeclock has established a basis by pointing out that "In the realm of intelligence, it has been established that Asians have on average higher IQs than whites." Although this only compares Asians to white people, it still establishes that a difference in intelligence exists between races.
For the second question... Come on.. How many Olympic Gold Medal runners and World Record holders are black?
And statistically speaking, generalizations are more useful than individual cases, provided of course, that the generalizations are accurate, which seems to be the case in reference to Orangeclock's posts. Any competent mathematician would know that.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit|
all I want to know is if there is any scientific evidence that blacks are genetically better runners and that Asians are genetically smarter than whites. If there isn't any, then this means that these observations are a result of conditioning. These generalizations are less than accurate because he is saying that it is a result of genetics that this is the case. If it is a result of genetics, then all blacks would be good runners, and all Asians would be highly intelligent, when this is obviously not the case. I'm black, and I'm not on the track team. I know Asians who are not smart, in the academic sense of the word. But then, if it's a result of genetics, then the dumb Asians and the non-runner blacks would have some sort of genetic abnormality to cause this. I'll wait for the scientific evidence that is published in a reputable scientific journal before I believe that it's a result of genetics. Before that, I believe it's a result of conditioning. Nature vs. nurture.
|By Techer07 (Techer07) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 02:28 pm: Edit|
I am a Hispanic student, currently a freshman at Caltech. I grew up in a town just north of Princeton, NJ. My town, which is also my school district (I went to public school) has an average property value well over $400,000 and is one of the most wealthy towns in Somerset County, which in the census was ranked as the most wealthy county in the nation. Last year, when applying to colleges, I realized that I would be receiving some kind of AA in some way or another. Here are some stats to let you know what kind of a student I was at the time I applied:
SAT I: 800 M/ 770 V
Math IIC: 800
GPA: 3.9 UW, 4.3 W
Scores of 5: Biology, Calculus AB, US Gov't and Politics, Chemistry
Score of 4: Statistics
In Progress: Physics C (Mech / E&M), US History, Calculus BC, Environmental Science (self-study), Spanish Language (self-study)
All kinds of Science Nerd Teams, various awards in each (Math team, Sci. Team, Academic League, etc.)
4 consecutive years of National Science Olympiad, 20+ state medals, 3 National Finals Medals
Model United Nations: Recognized as an outstanding delegate two consecutive years, member of the premier delegation twice.
St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Youhr Group:
20-30 hours a week of faith formation leadership, social justice leadership, administrative leadership, leadership traning, and community service, summer immersion trips.
Summer research at a Department of Energy plasma physics laboatory (and no, my mentor had no idea I was a URM when I got the job...after my sophomore year on HS)
By the way - I appled as a junior, not even having graduated high school, so those stats above, that although not mind blowing compared to a lot of competitive students, were indeed very competitive, and achieved in little more than two years, compared to three for most other applicants.
Clearly, all of this SCREAMS that I was admitted as a URM and not a legitimate admission.
I am not delusiusional, I understand that I definately received some help by being Hispanic, and I realize that the fact that I, living in an upper-middle class white town attending one of the best public schools in the state of NJ, was not what was intended by AA.
But some things that could not have come through on my application that make me a valuable contributor to a college community are all attritbuted to being hispanic. Because I did grow up in a fortunate home, I was able to visit Mexico, where my entire extended family lives. Despite what has been said earlier, I would like to bring up my personal family as case and point of the fact that Mexicans are not inherently lazy and poor. My father is one of five children. He is the oldest. His first sister was recently married. She is a high-power executive in Mexican banking, as is her husband. The third child, after finishing her degree, married her husband - who is a very successful lawyer. My other uncle, the fourth in the family, is a successful entrepreneur in the Mexico City area, and the youngest sibling is a graphic designer in advertising. When I go to visit Mexico, I don't go to ride a burro and eat tacos. We spend time together, and I am truly immersed in a culture that very few people would even think exists - the upper-middle class in Mexico. How does this make me a stronger applicant than an equivalent white or asian, besides the fact that I can compete with them after a year less of school? I have a truly unique and diverse perspective. Now, for those of you who are too selfish and obnoxious to acknowledge the socio-economic neccessity of AA, this must be an attractive prospect for you. At Caltech, the overwhelming majority of asians are really freaking lame. It's panifully true that a significant fraction spend their entire day in their room studying. What kind of a colleague is that? I'd rather hang out with a cardboard cutout that a fool like that. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I live in a community that has a reasonably high concentration of minority students, mostly hispanics. We are widely reputed as being the most interesting and fun house to be around, not because we are hispanic, but because we are INTERESTING. IF you want to say that all Hispanics and Blacks are inherently lazy, then I am more than justified in saying that all Asians are the same - scrawny little violin playing book mongers that SUCK to hang out and socialize with. Clearly, if all URMs are not academically viable members of highly ranked institutions, than it can be said that all Asians are worthless to the social community. If I may remind you, college is supposed to be a time of SOCIAL growth as much as intellectual. I'd much rather be around a bunch of dumb, interesting Hispanics than a bunch of boring Asians.
For the record, all my best friends in High School were Asian, and I as much as anyone else knows that every statement I just made is wrong. Nevertheless, it is true that there are a lot more of high achieving Asians than there are high achieving Hispanics. Nevertheless, who is going to contribute more to the community, another great violin playing, extremely intelligent Asian that speaks English and Mandarin Chinese to add to the prexisting pile,, or an equally intelligent Hispanic with that speaks French, Spanish and English fluently, that has spent large amounts of time in Mexico and has a deep understanding of that culture, a passion for social justice and faith, from a group several orders of magnitude smaller?
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit|
Don't pretend you didn't understand my first post Orangeclock. I did NOT say that The Bell Curve presented arguments that blacks weren't even fully human. I said that its arguments have their roots clear back to the earliest days of slavery, when it was unquestioningly assumed that blacks weren't even fully human. I said: "Then as now, the argument was that presumed intellectual deficiencies were genentically determined". Your own words prove my point.
Your analogy comparing the different breeds of dog with the different "races" of human beings is stageringly erroneous. Do your homework. Geneticists have been saying for a number of years now, strengthened by research in the Human Genome Project, that "race" is a social construct, not a scientific one. Unlike dogs and many other species of animals, which can be classified into different "races", human beings DO NOT display enough genetic diveristy to be classified as "separate races". Therefore, the "grayhounds run faster" analogy cannot directly be translated into a "blacks run faster" because of "racial genetics" argument.
Reread my second post: I posited that admitting a FULLY QUALIFIED middle or upperclass black person, IN PART to aid in campus diversity, was just as valid as admitting the fully qualified rancher's son or poor white for the same purpose. You said: "It is a big deal, both in principal and in effect." Explain how that is the case. Are you saying that the rancher's son's background and unique geographic location, or the poor white's circumstances and background are also invalid admissions considerations, both in "principal and in effect?" If not, what makes the black applicant's diversity not as valuable?
The argument that "racial differences" are genetically determined, and therefore, immutable, is a convenient one for those who sit at the top level of the power structure. It is both self-serving and lazy. It absolves one of the need to fully to take into consideration hundreds of years of political and social history, or to question one's own motivation for operating under genetics-based assumptions. Differences between individuals and groups of individuals are too complex and variable-dependent to simply pigeon-hole as a function of genetics. But that reality wouldn't square with your sense of smug superiority, would it Orangeclock?
|By Rck (Rck) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit|
"Upper middle class/rich blacks are still BLACK! Black American CULTURE transcends income. With the exception of foreign blacks, blacks have been homogenized to the oint where almost none, in any wealth group take the initiative to do well in school. "
Wow... I won't even comment on that...
This may sound like a stupid question, but what about the stereotypical "hick"? The southern culture is not historically academic, but many from that background have broken the stereotype despite thier non-URM status. Plenty of whites live in environments that don't encourage academics, so why shouldn't they get a piece of the AA pie?
The aformentioned problems stem from family/friend influences and economic hardship, not skin color. AA should go towards first-generation and poorer students, not simply all blacks or hispanics. It could also affect those who live in low-income neighborhoods.
I am hispanic, and I know that my heritage will most likely aid my acceptance to the college of my choice. However, it should not. Living in a middle class setting with supportive surroundings affected my academic drive, not my heritage.
|By Margitte (Margitte) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit|
right on, techer07.
|By Rewind2482 (Rewind2482) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit|
Say what you will. Say that it promotes a more "diverse" school environment. Say it's to make up for years of segregation.
The black/hispanic/URM student needs LESS in order to be admitted than a white or asian student. The URM student is given POINTS (literally or figuratively) for just being a particular race.
Just forget about all the other arguments and think about that for a second.
Think a little harder.
A little more.
OK. Now, if you don't think THAT is wrong, then there's something clearly wrong with the way you are thinking. If you acknowledge it is wrong, then it becomes a question of whether the ends, a potentially more "diverse" student group, justifies the means of AA.
There's more to diversity than race. Assumptions that all Asians are boring study-freaks are about as groundless here as the assumption that all Hispanics are lazy or that all Blacks are unintelligent.
I don't care if the URMs benefitting are "qualified enough". The principle of it is, a white/Asian who is MORE qualified was probably rejected from that school.
" also, if you are black, have a 2.1 GPA, 470 SAT, etc. you simply aren't getting into Yale unless you have some spectacular something. Affirmative action doesn't work like that. Colleges won't admit people that can't handle the work, whether they be black, white, green or pink. Affirmative action will not help you get in a college if you can' do the work."
If you have no experience/skill in golf, you aren't going to beat Tiger Woods, even with a 7 stroke handicap. Therefore, its ok to give everyone playing him a 7 stroke handicap because you'd still need to play pretty good golf to beat him.
If you have horrible stats, you aren't getting into a top college. Therefore, AA is perfectly acceptable because you STILL need good stats to get into a top college.
Its the principle of it. I'm an Asian who pretty much has no connection with my supposed "culture" or any of the stereotypically "Asian" pursuits such as violin... On the other hand, I have a Hispanic friend who is obsessed with all things Asian. She's been to Japan twice and is pretty good at writing/speaking Japanese. I could cite many other examples, but it comes down to this.
Race differences are NOT cultural differences. That solitary statement disproves the argument of AA promoting "cultural diversity", and for me, refutes AA altogether.
Thank you for sitting through my statement.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit|
your friend sounds like me. I'm black but am deeply interested in Eastern philosophy and religion(Hinduism, Buddhism, esp.). I made that apparent on my applications as well, and I'm sure that will also make me sounds "different" and bring diversity to the campus, which shows that just b/c you're black doesn't mean you play basketball or like rap music. I don't fit either stereotype.
|By Techer07 (Techer07) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit|
"OK. Now, if you don't think THAT is wrong, then there's something clearly wrong with the way you are thinking. If you acknowledge it is wrong, then it becomes a question of whether the ends, a potentially more "diverse" student group, justifies the means of AA. "
Many athletes are admitted with lower scores than any URM...nobody complains about them, like they do about URMs, because college athletics contribute to the atmosphere of the university. Same argument applies.
By the way - I'm not sure I made it clear. I believe that AA as it's practiced today is problematic. I almost feel like I cheated the system by applying under AA as a URM. Although I strongly believe that my reasoning above is correct, and I believe that diversity strongly helps a college, I also believe that real AA would be based on socio-economic status. Contributions from diversity to the community not withstanding, I strongly believe that it is an abberation that I receive AA help and an inner city student, who is white, does not.
Additionally, someone brought up the point of the stereotypical "hick". This is also a consideration as far as AA goes - colleges also want geographical diversity in their classes. In the past, Caltech's summer programs included rural students; however, for whatever reason, this stopped about five years ago.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit|
if you feel cheated, don't check anything. The race area is completely optional.
|By Rewind2482 (Rewind2482) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit|
Wouldn't that just put you at "neutral" in the race category? Meaning that someone who checks a URM category still gains an advantage?
"Many athletes are admitted with lower scores than any URM...nobody complains about them, like they do about URMs, because college athletics contribute to the atmosphere of the university. Same argument applies."
True. But athletics is a talent/special ability. I have no problem with a college admitting someone with lower (yet still acceptable) scores but a special talent/ability, whether that be in athletics, music, etc. Being a member of a race is not a special ability.
That said, I'd agree with the rest of your post. Diversity can be accomplished through people of all socio-economic backgrounds and from different geographical areas. A middle-class black student living in my town is not likely to be much different from me (well, perhaps as likely to be different as a middle-class white student from my area.) Race simply isn't as big a factor as many people here seem to realize.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit|
Points system is not used anymore.
More colleges now simply aim to have a certain percentage of each incoming class made up of URM's, and thus tailor their admissions to meet that number.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit|
i don't think they would do that either, b/c that would be like a quota, which is illegal.
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit|
It's not a quota, it's a general goal, say, like 8% or 15%.
|By Neo (Neo) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit|
If the general population of the U.S. was reflected via a quota system in colleges across the country, then the Asian population would be far below 30% at MIT or Berkley. In fact, it would be closer to 6%.
In other words, QUOTAS aren't used.
|By Vivek86 (Vivek86) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit|
by your own admission (by "your", I generally mean those who support AA on this board), there are no inherent differences between the races. whatever the norm among Asians for academic excellence, etc., every person possesses the same potential, and race is an irrelevant issue as far as academic success. why, then, do you argue AA is a just system? because it promotes diversity on campus? what is diversity? seeing people of different colors? with different experiences? it is ignorant on your part to assume that all Asians think the same way and will not have any outstanding life experiences that make them unique, and to think that simply having a multiracial campus will benefit students. if by your admission, all people have an equal potential for success, isn't it likely that people of every race will succeed? statistically, if every group has an equal possiblity of success, the best students will be representative of the population--a minority of of the best students would be minorities and the majority would be white. That's expected, because that's the population distribution of the US. The argument that not having AA will create a single-race campus is ridiculous. I haven't filled out the race bubble on any of my applications. Why? They don't need to know. It has no bearing on my academic ability or my mode of thinking. Would I mind going to a school that's all-Asian? Not in the least. Any fair admissions committee will seek to have a broadly-talented student body, and it is ignorant to think that that cannot be accomplished without thought to race. Racial identification only perpetuates the disunity and guardedness of our generation. Until we stop labelling ourselves "black" or "asian", we will always have associations in our mind that influence our choices and ideas. Affirmative Action is a series of lies that, through their support, reveal the alarming ignorance of many, many people.
|By Varr (Varr) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit|
I think what Mzhang23 is saying is actually true, just look at the facts lets say x univ for 2002 had a 9%hispanic 11%black and 2% native american and look at the 2003 it would be something like 8%hispanic 12%black and 1% native american
I do believe that a limit for URM's exist
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit|
"A middle-class black student living in my town is not likely to be much different from me (well, perhaps as likely to be different as a middle-class white student from my area.)"
If that's true, Rewind (and I don't believe it is), your's is a most unusual town indeed. African American students (whatever their income level) have a number of cultural experiences and sensibilities in common. Middle and upper class black kids ARE NOT white kids dipped in chocolate. Just because they don't speak ebonics, doesn't mean that their heritage as African Americans is a mere historical footnote.
|By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit|
Can someone please lock this post. It has absolutely no relevance in the admission process.
If anyone wants to know more about affirmative action, they should look it up on google.com
Fretting about it here, will accomplish nothing at all.
|By Vivek86 (Vivek86) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit|
Valpal- maybe its just me, but the historical legacies of other cultures isn't as foreign a knowledge as it once was. through my personal contacts, I'm familiar with numerous heritages......I've practically got a doctorate in Ebonics...seriously, though, however a person's heritage may shape them as a person, living and growing up in this country gives us a common background....we've all experienced so many aspects of so many cultures that its easy to assimilate their characteristics without actually belonging to a particular "group".....what of people by adopted by parents of another race? what of multiethnic families? do the same clear-cut assumptions about personal character apply? absolutely not. however minor a point it may seem when making observations on a national scale, generalizations about character on the basis of race cannot resolve the issue
|By Varr (Varr) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit|
Yes it will, It wont if people like you dont express their own opinion about AA, obviosuly this post would have 108 comments if it werent a subject people want to hear, so keep you comments to your self!, the users have spoken there for we are the majority, not you. sorry
|By Rewind2482 (Rewind2482) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit|
"If that's true, Rewind (and I don't believe it is), your's is a most unusual town indeed. African American students (whatever their income level) have a number of cultural experiences and sensibilities in common. Middle and upper class black kids ARE NOT white kids dipped in chocolate. Just because they don't speak ebonics, doesn't mean that their heritage as African Americans is a mere historical footnote."
Please state some "cultural experiences and sensibilities" that African-American (or any minority) would have in common.
|By Mattman (Mattman) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
Valpal and Varr are just wrong in their tactics, if not their argument. Instead of making actual points to support their beliefs they merely say that inequality is justified because by being of one race, despite your lifestyle or culture, is important enough to give a lifelong bias.
|By Thedad (Thedad) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit|
Considering that URM's, regardless of education and socio-economic level, face life-long bias *against* them...shrug. There are so many stereotypes being exploited here and so many ideological posturings that ignore inconvenient realities.
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:31 am: Edit|
And what "tactics" might those be, Mattman? I believe I've supported my arguments with very concrete logic. Go back, reread my posts and address the questions I put forth to Orangeclock...
I was, quite frankly amused by your last statement. "Inequality based on race" (with EVERY mainstream social construct giving the decided advantage to whites) has been the modus operandi of the American power structure for the past 400 years! Yet you find only 25 years of limited AA to be the greatest of injustices? Amazing! Even more amazing is the fact that you take issue with my posts, but fail to show yourself to be even slightly offended by Orangeclock's view that blacks are intellectually inferior, as predetermined by genetic hardwiring! Even as you seem to deny that blacks are disadvantaged by on-going racism, you tacitly (if not openly) support the kinds of racist views that have proved most damaging.
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 03:19 am: Edit|
Rewind, most African Americans, regardless of social and economic status, have been affected to some degree, by racial discrimination and negative stereotyping. Just as whites DO NOT have to labor under societal assumptions that their race is an inherent deficiency, blacks of all income and education levels know that the opposite is quite often true. This is an example of a "cultural experience" that most blacks have in common. Most blacks, whether poor and uneducated, or educated and upwardly mobile, know that many whites of the opposite sex would not even consider dating them (certainly not to the point of bringing them home to meet the folks) because of their assumed racial unsuitability. Can you say that that is not the case in your high school---or even your family? Many whites seem to be living in a delusional "neverland" where the civil rights act of 1964 instantly eradicated practices of racism in America, and 200 years of slavery and half a century of Jim Crow have no long term social and cultural ramifications.
Blacks often share a common religious background and attend churches where gospel choir music is integral to the worship service. Blacks often share similar music and fashion tastes. Likewise, much of our cuisine is culture-wide. We often share an oral tradition of "story-telling" and appreciation extended of family which has its roots in slavery, when the only way that blacks were able to trace their family history, was through stories told over and over. These are examples of "sensibilities" that many blacks have that may differ from similar practices in other cultures.
I don't know how to otherwise answer your question. You seem intent on believing that middle and upper class blacks have no culture, values or practices that are functionally separate from those of their white counterparts. I am here to tell you that, by in large, that is not so. But I'm sure you'll believe what you want to believe.
|By Techer07 (Techer07) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:26 am: Edit|
The fact that all races should be considered equal does not indicate that AA is invalid. In fact, if we begin with the assumption that all races have equal potential, then AA is clearly justified. If all races have equal potential, then the most talented URMs and the most talented Asians/Whites/Other Whiners have equal potential. In that case, it is justified to provide similar opportunities to both groups. In fact, the college admissions process is biased not by race, but by money, and in the US, it is a fact that Hispanics and African-Americans are on average more disadvantaged than the majority and the "over-represented" minorities. Tests such as the SAT and AP measure preparation and teaching more than inherent intelligence, as course load is more a function of availability than ambition and talent. Clearly, upper-middle class towns provide much stronger environments. For that reason, two students with equal potential, one who is from a disadvantaged background (statistically more likely to be a URM) will show more poorly on a college application than a student from a wealthy background (less likely to be a URM).
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit|
"....we've all experienced so many aspects of so many cultures that its easy to assimilate their characteristics without actually belonging to a particular "group".....what of people by adopted by parents of another race? what of multiethnic families? do the same clear-cut assumptions about personal character apply?"
So you are saying that no one can claim any sort of distinct ethnic culture outside of the one that may be identified as generic to America? Surely you can't really believe that. Even American "culture" itself, is extremely varied and multi-layered as an amorphous sort of entity.
By the way, my own children are "multi-racial". Their father is German American and I am African American. Though they do, in many ways straddle the fence between two distinct cultures, they also rather elegantly embody many elements of both. For instance, my D loves both collard greens and the German rockgroup, Ramstein (I'm sure I probably spelled that wrong).
"do the same clear-cut assumptions about personal character apply?"
"Character" is not specific to any particular racial or ethnic group. It embodies traits such as, integrity, courage, fortitude, compassion, etc.,---as well as less favorable ones: closemindedness, cowardice, greed, etc. Indications of these characteristics are the kinds of things that admissions offices look for within the context of each individual application and have nothing to do with race.
|By Brenner87 (Brenner87) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit|
MZhang dont be an ignoramus, if you were as smart as you portray yourself, you would realize that AA only hurts minorities. Most educated African Americans are opposed to the policy.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit|
I like Ramstein! (But am not in any way German)
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit|
everyone has some sort of culture that they identify with, practices that they continue, whether they are based on their own heritage or just out of interest. If this wasn't the case, then the various ethnic and religious organizations on campuses would not have members. Is it a wonder that the vast majority of people on an African dance troupe are of African descent? Or the people on an Indian dance troupe? Each person brings something unique to the campus, and it is also the case that people of various races have different experiences. Affirmative action is NOT a means of taking away places at universities from non-URM applicants, but a means that URM applicants in certain situations can have an equal opportunity at gaining the education they want. Many people also don't realize that Affirmative action is also for women, and people in low economic standards. If you are a black person, with both parents as doctors, living in a rich neighborhood, travelling around the world yearly, etc., you simply won't benefit from AA b/c you have had the opportunities needed to get the highest education possible. It is well known that overall, blacks, hispanics,native americans, and some asians are in a low economic state. Not all schools have the same resources, esp. in these areas, which is why AA is a benefit. Also, I would think that the great universities of this country would know if AA was wrong, instead of continuing in a policy that puts a large portion of their applicant pool at a disadvantage. Ebonics is not a distinguishing characteristic of a black person. It is a characteristic of a certain type of person, not the african american population. There are experiences that are unique to each culture and race, and those are things that are brought to the college campus, adding both to the diversity and the overall learning experience. College isn't only about academics, it's about learning about the people in the world, interaction with these people, which helps you grow as a person. College should be a microcosm of our diverse country and world.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit|
It seems to me that the AA proponents in this message board have been pretty hypocritical. One minute they claim that URM poor performance is a result of the their backward culture. The next minute they claim that the college experience won't be complete without URM culture present. Which is it?
"Affirmative action is NOT a means of taking away places at universities from non-URM applicants"
There are a finite amount of places in each college freshman class. If there was no AA, many more qualified whites and asians would get the spots that are unfairlyu taken by URMs.
"If you are a black person, with both parents as doctors, living in a rich neighborhood, travelling around the world yearly, etc., you simply won't benefit from AA b/c you have had the opportunities needed to get the highest education possible."
You are wrong. Look at this: http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm Even rich blacks get AA.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit|
I think Orangeclock is hilarious and His comments are extremely Stormfront worthy. But the one, extemely dumb comment he made, reffered to Andrew Carnegie having been born in inauspicious conditions and succeeding as a result of his superior white genes. Well, i suppose that if such bs can be brought up in an AA debate, it should at least be thouroughly refuted. Therefore, I would love to make a point to this idiot that a Sudanese refugee recently on oprah did the same thing, and many Africans in worse conditions have managed to do this as well. Perhaps you should have utilized your innate white superiority and developed a clearer thesis. Anyway, as for your "rich blacks gett AA" nonsense, I must say to you that NO SYSTEM IS FLAWLESS. Just because some unfavorable things happen does not mean a system should be scrapped. Should our government be scrapped because its imperfect? Or better yet, should you commit suicide because you make mistakes (huge ones i might add)? Think about this while youre browsing Stormfront for "facts" to help your argument.
|By Shsjonb (Shsjonb) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit|
Will everyone stop making generalizations about whites, blacks, and asians. Colleges don't make decisions based on generalizations. No two persons of the same race are exactly the same. I think that colleges should look at each person individually for who he/she is. Therefore race should definitely be considered, but it should be observed in its context. I don't even think that looking at it from a socioeconomic viewpoint is simply enough either. I know poor students with the best families who find a way to succeed without money. There are also rich kids who haven't seen there parnets in years who are at a disadvantage.
Going back to AA: If anyone on this board uses that shiznit line about slavery not existing anyonemore I'm going to reach through the computer and slap them. How on earth can everything be all "peaches and cream" when I have living relatives who witnessed lynchings as children. If you guys think that the hatred that was prevalent during the 60s has left within this mere 40 year span you don't deserve to get into college. How the fizzuck can you say everyboby's equal me when not even sixty years ago my great grandmother's husband was lynched. Futhermore, the dehumanization of a race has a much longer lasting effect than taking away one's money. You might no be a discriminator but the black race is still fuuuuuck@@@@2ed up b/c of what happened. We're making progress but there's is no way that 40 years of "equal rights" will make up for over 250 years of the worst thing known to mankind.
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit|
"One minute they claim that URM poor performance is a result of the their backward culture"... Nobody used the term, "backward culture", but you, Orangeclock. Holy sh%#!, you just show your racism more unabashedly with every post!
And you still have not responded to my post concerning The Bell Curve, or your erroneous assumptions about racial genetics, or the various types of diversity that colleges value in their applicants. You just spew.
You've proved that your stance on AA is entirely skewed by racism and the assumption that NO black applicant (no matter how qualified) is worthy of admission to a top institution if it means that a white applicant will be denied. Admit it. You just don't believe blacks have a any "place" in the likes of HYP or any other top LAC. Your racism invalidates any argument that you might put forth.
|By Brenner87 (Brenner87) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit|
Valpal, you use the word "racism" like your own personal sword. How can you not see AA itself as racist?
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit|
Sorry that your great grandmother's husband got lynched, but that's probably never going to happen to you, is it?
There is never going to be any progress if people keep condemning modern society for things that happened three generations ago.
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit|
Youre right foreignboy! Lets forget the past, as it has no effects on anything at all! I say we release everyone in prison who commited a crime over a year ago, because it was in the past.
On a more serious note, nobody is condemning modern society for the past. Pro AA people are not simply a bunch of Yahoos who think that every institution is racist. If you listen to someone more rational than Jesse Jackson, youll see that youre points are extremely irrelevant to this arguement. Shs was simply letting you know that racism did exist, and therefore, A system is needed to reconcile the detrimental effects of past policies on black culture, NOT him as an individual.
|By Mjl86 (Mjl86) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit|
I'm Pro AA... Look at the stats. There are more blacks every year going to jail than to college. And by the age of 25, 33% of all black males have been serving some time in prison. We need to equalize the playing field. btw I'm an asian.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit|
"I say we release everyone in prison who commited a crime over a year ago, because it was in the past."
Isn't this comparison just as irrelevant?
Anyway, this thread is getting a bit too emotional..
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit|
It seems as if you are truly angry at me, though I could be mistaken. Hopefully you and everyone else will realize that it is not my intention to offend anyone. If I do offend you chillinnigerian, you have my sincere apology.
"reffered to Andrew Carnegie having been born in inauspicious conditions and succeeding as a result of his superior white genes."
Allow me to quote myself:
"This was possible because he was smart."
I attributed his success to his intellegence. It is a good example of how people can work their way up from low economic positions.
"Sudanese refugee recently on oprah did the same thing, and many Africans in worse conditions have managed to do this as well."
Great. I applaud him and all the other people of ANY race who have brought themselves up from poverty.
"Perhaps you should have utilized your innate white superiority and developed a clearer thesis."
Remember that I have been arguing that Asians are on average the most intellegent race.
I know very little about stormfront, as I have never used it for a reasource as you claim. Trying to associate me with this ignominious organization is not a valid argument.
I would like to reiterate my argument on intellegence and race once more.
My argument has always been that certain races ON AVERAGE are more intellegent than others. For example, when I say ON AVERAGE, I mean that if one were to measure the average intellegence of ALL white people and ALL asian people, one would find the average IQ of Asians to be higher than that of whites. Because on average Asians have the highest amount of intellegence, it should not surprise us that a higher proportion of Asians attend college than any other race.
I have never claimed that any race is superior to others. I have never claimed that blacks are incapable of accomplishing great things. Cerainly there are many cases where blacks and other URMs are extremely intellent, hard-working, etc.
Because I realize that the average intellegence of any given race in no way predicts the intellegence of any individual in that race, it has always been my personal policy to judge each person individually. It is my hope that society will one day do the same and abolish AA.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit|
There are a finite amount of places in each college freshman class. If there was no AA, many more qualified whites and asians would get the spots that are unfairlyu taken by URMs.
Please. As you say, there's only a finite amount of places in each class. Thus even "qualified" whites and asians are denied while others are admitted, and even if AA was taken away, colleges would still want to admit a diverse class, thus other "qualified" applicants would be denied. If the college believes that you are qualified and can handle the workload at the college(whether it may or may not be true in year 3), then you will be admitted, URM or not. URM's get their spaces fairly, and it's the same thing if you are a poor white person who didn't have the same resources as a middle class white person. It's the same for women. That's how Affirmative action works. Quota/point systems are illegal, genuine AA works and is beneficial to both the college environment, and the enrolling class.
|By Mjl86 (Mjl86) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 06:55 pm: Edit|
I'm offended by orangeclock
"Remember that I have been arguing that Asians are on average the most intellegent race."
I take a 300 level neuropsychology course at the local university here and there is no biological basis for what you stated. I am Chinese and I do not belive that Asians are inherently smarter than everyone else. yes they do have higher averages, but that is due to nurture and the deep-seated work ethic stemming from Confucianism. Psychologists and Physiologists have tried to distinguish race just by looking at DNA and failed miserably with only about 50% guessing accuartely. In fact, it is believed, and you can look this reasearch up online, that there is more genetic varaition within a race than across races. Evolution takes a very long time and a couple thouand yeras of isolation will not create a dramatic affect in differences intelligence.
There is however a proven difference in intelligence and perception between males and females... but that is a whole other story
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 07:01 pm: Edit|
"If you are a black person, with both parents as doctors, living in a rich neighborhood, travelling around the world yearly, etc., you simply won't benefit from AA b/c you have had the opportunities needed to get the highest education possible."
You are wrong. Look at this: http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm Even rich blacks get AA.
I don't see how this chart says that rich blacks get AA. However, we do see that those that are economically disadvantaged DO get points, which is what i've been saying for a while now. HOWEVER, I do NOT agree with the point system, as that is not affirmative action. I don't know why you're posting something that isn't representative of AA and something that isn't even used at pro-AA universities.
You claim that you've been saying that no race is better than another, yet in your previous posts you've said that it's b/c of genetics that Asians have a high intelligence, etc. That obviously means that Asians are genetically smarter than whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. Implying they are "better". I ask you again to provide reputable scientific evidence that Asians are genetically intelligent, moreso than other races. The Bell Curve is NOT a reputable source. Being smart is a result of conditioning, and people in poor situations do not have the opportunities and resources that others have, and it is also known that a large proportion of minorities are in this situation, making AA valid. Women also benefit from AA, as well as poor whites, Asians, etc.
Although slavery has ended, racism still exists. Never does month pass without finding out that a swastika was painted in a Jewish neighborhood, a Muslim person was discriminated against b/c of religion and culture, or a black person was stopped on the highway for being black. The past affects the future, which is why we study it.
Once again, read some books on AA, and you'll understand what it REALLY is. Upper middle class minorities don't benefit from it, I won't, and this is clearly discussed in books on admission to college. The black person who says that he lives in the richest neighborhood in the county, goes to private school, parents are rich, etc., won't benefit from AA. However, the black person who says that he lives in the inner-city, the school doesn't have AP classes, poor school, single parent, takes care of siblings, yet still succeeds and has high academics despite his living situation WILL benefit from AA. The same goes for any minority, as well as whites. That's the beauty of AA.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit|
thanks Mjl86, you said it well. I took Intro to Psych at Georgetown, and the professor told us the same thing. It's the result of the environment, the fact that Asian culture values community, success, education, and the respect of elders, that contributes to academic achievement. Let's only hope that every culture and race adopts this outlook.
|By Orangeclock (Orangeclock) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit|
The chart shows that they make no distinction between rich URMs and poor URMs. Tech07 admitted this. Its been established.
The point system has been what AA was for a long time now.
"NO black applicant (no matter how qualified) is worthy of admission to a top institution if it means that a white applicant will be denied."
I never said that. I just think that the most qualified applicant should get in. Being a member of one race doesn't count as a qualification.
"Admit it. You just don't believe blacks have a any "place" in the likes of HYP or any other top LAC"
Thats not what I said. Reread my posts again, including the one about private and public schools.
"and Physiologists have tried to distinguish race just by looking at DNA and failed miserably with only about 50% guessing accuartely."
"He had not been aware of DNA sequences that could identify race" - http://www.ancestrybydna.com/ScientificAmericanTheRealityofRace.htm
"Your racism invalidates any argument that you might put forth"
AA is the racism. I am for judging based on merit, not race.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit|
ornangeclock, the point system was used by UMich, and if it was representative of what AA is, then there wouldn't have been so much controversy on UMich. Quotas are illegal, giving points b/c you're black or hispanic is wrong. That is not what affirmative action is. AA also occurs in the workplace. Do you think that they get extra points for being a woman or minority? That's not what it is. That's what UMich did, not what other pro-AA universities did/do.
The fact is that the person who is qualified does get in. Being black does NOT mean admitted or means you are automatically disadvantaged. A college simply won't admit someone who's not qualified or will bring their reputation down. Also, just b/c you have a 1600 SAT or 4.0+ GPA does not mean you are "qualified". Yes, having those stats DOES increase your chances, but it doesn't mean you're automatically qualified. Colleges look beyond that and look for how you as a person will bring something unique to the campus, will add to the community, and who will take advantage of the opportunities given at the University.
Also, the site you provided also shows that there is more variation within a race than b/w races. This has been the point of a few posters here.
Those techniques have revealed that race is minor at the DNA level. The genetic differences between any two randomly selected individuals in one socially recognized population account for 85 percent of the variation one might find between people of separate populations. Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 08:36 pm: Edit|
Also, recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that race can be a factor in admissions, and that diversity brings a better view of the world and social value. HOWEVER, they said that the point system as used by UMich is illegal, and cannot be used. This shows that AA is NOT a point system, but race and culture are part of the admissions process, though DEFINITELY NOT a large part of it. Once again, you simply won't gain admission to a University b/c you are a URM. If you are qualified, you will get in. The person in lower standards, who goes to a school with no APs,etc., and who lives in a situation that is poor will obviously have slightly lower standards than the majority of the applicant pool. It just so happens that most of the applicants who are in this category are URMs. Diversity in the classroom brings diversity of opinion, which adds to the learning process. A homogeneous campus simply won't broaden the views of the students, esp. if that's something they've experienced since High school.
|By Anomaly (Anomaly) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:22 pm: Edit|
The whole point of going to university is to prepare you for life and the primary objective of these institutions is to produce people that will be useful to society as a whole. In their selection of prospective attendants universities not only try to disscern which of the applicants show potential in becoming productive member of society, but also trys to creates an environment that is conducive to maximum learning and ultimately producing good and hardworking people. If a university was full of all asians or all whites or all blacks, then the students would only be subject to what they have experienced their entire lifetimes. People wouldn't get the opportunity to break the stereotypes and find out that maybe all asians aren't nerd and all blacks aren't lazy or super atheletes or all whites aren't rich and snobby. I am fortunate enough to have had experiences will people of all types of cultural backgrounds and to realize that I cannot apply such racial profiles to each individual of a particular race. Others however are not so fortunate, and college should provide an opportunity for them to learn not only in the classroom, but from their interactions with their fellow students. I don't know if affirmative action is necessarily the best course to take in trying to foment diversity and culture, but it is at least a step. Over the course of history several mistakes in policy of government etc. have been made, but somehow mankind has found a way to survive through it. If AA is indeed a mistake, I am sure all of those harmed by it will find a way to survive.
Just my 2 cents.
|By Uofcrocksstone (Uofcrocksstone) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit|
Anomaly, no the whole point of college is to take your money in exchange for a career that is supposed to compensate for all your toil and hard work and time plus multiplying your college expenses, therefore, producing profit for you.
|By Peacemakerv (Peacemakerv) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 05:31 am: Edit|
AA should not be based on RACE!!
it is wrong to say any one with dark skin color (ie blacks) will bring diversity to a campus (which is the purpose of AA?). Black skin color will only bring RACIAL diversity to the campus, not cultural or any other things. I think it's time to look beyond the skin color and see what's under it.
If what some other posters here said is true, that skin color DOES influent culture and other things about a person, then WHY NOT show what being black/hispanice/URM has done to influence you as a PERSON and what kind of PERSON you are, instead of just checking a box saying "I AM BLACK", and colleges will automatically assume ur diverse. I think it's the person you are that bring diversity, not ur skin color. If a black person (assuming very academically qualified) practices the exactly same things as an Asian, then how can he bring diversity to the campus? He will only bring RACIAL diversity, which makes the college look good, but nothing else. BUT, if a person loves rap and does all the things an African-American would, then no matter what skin color he/she has, the person would likely to bring diversity. If an Asian plays bball and practices black culture, then he/she is "different" from the rest of the Asians, and can bring diversity, but by checking that box that says" i am Asian", it is almost automatically assumed this person will not be benefitting from AA. However, if his/her essays show that this person is truely different, then he/she will still get in. So i think it's important to realize that It's the PERSON you are that brings diversity, NOT the skin color.
Many colleges try to look good on paper that they have such and such percentage being URM. But once you get to the campus, the diversity on paper is not there. URMs will likely hang out together, which Asians will likely hang out together, etc. Their diversity is rarely mixed, which defeats the whole purpose of tryin to have diversity. For example, if a person likes politics and takes all his/her classes in politics, then this person will likely to hang out with ppl wit the same interests, and not influencing people who love math. So diversity may look amazing on paper, but the practical value is, in my ignorant opinion, exaggerated.
BTW, i am Asian and i DO NOT just stay in and study. I am on every sports team i can get my hands on, but by checking that little box saying "Asian", i automatically CANOT bring diversity to the campus and thus can not benefit from AA... sad?
|By Cornellhopeful (Cornellhopeful) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit|
If a black person (assuming very academically qualified) practices the exactly same things as an Asian, then how can he bring diversity to the campus? He will only bring RACIAL diversity, which makes the college look good, but nothing else. BUT, if a person loves rap and does all the things an African-American would, then no matter what skin color he/she has, the person would likely to bring diversity. If an Asian plays bball and practices black culture, then he/she is "different" from the rest of the Asians, and can bring diversity, but by checking that box that says" i am Asian", it is almost automatically assumed this person will not be benefitting from AA.
While your other points are good, I don't think that this part is necessarily true. Rap music does not mean African American, though the genre is dominated by blacks. Basketball also is not African American, though it is dominated by blacks. These things do not make a person more or less black, in the same way that speaking ebonics isn't a definitive characteristic of African Americans. I am black, and I don't play basketball, I never liked rap music, and I definitely don't speak ebonics. These things do not make me less black, just less of the type of person that enjoys these things, whether white, black, Asian, or hispanic.
|By Peacemakerv (Peacemakerv) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit|
then by accepting a person such as urself because ur black (as part of AA), i do not think diversity has been achieved. It is what U do that makes u unique, as u said, u dont know any of those things mentioned, but i'm sure u do alot of other things, those things may make u unique, they may not, but by assuming you are unique just because of ur skin color is what AA is saying. THAT i disagree with.
|By May_1 (May_1) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit|
I must be a masochist, as I don't even know why I keep re-entering the fray.
...then by accepting a person such as urself[sic] because ur [sic] black (as part of AA), i do not think diversity has been achieved.
Here, you are making the incorrect assumption that he will be accepted because of AA. The problem is that people see Affirmative Action not as the subtle, subjective measure it is but as a heavy-handed, mechanistic tool where blacks are auto-accepted, qualifications be damned. Instead, I see admissions as something like this:
There is a 50-gallon tub with about 2500 marbles. There are many yellow, green, and blue marbles, and, relatively, a few red marbles. Your job is to pick out the best-looking, nicest marbles. Unfortunately, a lot of all types of the marbles have nicks and scratches, are uneven, or may even be discolored. So after going through the marbles the first, you eliminate all but 1000 marbles. All of the marbles are pristine, vibrant in color, perfectly spherical, with a smooth outer coating. However, of these marbles, you notice that there are still many green marbles, a good number of yellow and blue marbles, but very few red marbles left. Now of these 1000 marbles, you can only pick out 200. Well, you could just scoop out marbles until you get to 200. The problem here is that you might end up with only yellow, green, and blue marbles. So instead, you pick out marbles carefully, making sure that you donít end up with only three colors of marbles.
A crude example it is. However, I hope itís also effective.
|By Peacemakerii (Peacemakerii) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit|
|By Nycdebater (Nycdebater) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 01:16 am: Edit|
Black skin color will only bring RACIAL diversity to the campus, not cultural or any other things. I think it's time to look beyond the skin color and see what's under it.
to act as if race isnt important...is kinda being ignorant ...and just not facing the facts..FACT RACES TEND TO STICK TOGETHER>....its not nice..u kno it sucks....u know yeh ur gonna have diff race friends....ur assuming these ppl who get into to schools dont speak about their culture...a lot of students write about their culture as their essay and its maybe those student who get in...
btw if i dont make sense sorry too tired to read it over...im tired
|By Obiwan (Obiwan) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 01:22 am: Edit|
This thread is degenerating and getting close to being eliminated. For starters, knock off the bold and colored text. It's the on-line equivalent of shouting.
Some of the arguments are also becoming repetitive and, frankly, stupid.
|By Nycdebater (Nycdebater) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit|
|By Chillinnigerian (Chillinnigerian) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit|
I couldnbt have said it better myself obiwan! On both sides the arguements are dumb. Even my last arguement was dumb because I was posting out of exhaustion with the topic. Please do the honors and kill this thread, and everyone like it in the future. (At least for the next 3 months).
|By Usnewsranker (Usnewsranker) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit|
AA should die, as should this thread...
|By Neona (Neona) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit|
Haha...that was mean...
Funny, but mean.
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|