HomeSchoolNewbe

@TexasPG - I totally agree with your posts.

According to Fabrizio and some on CC my URM dd, with a 4.0 GPA, over 2000 on her SATs, and Excellent essays and extracurrics ::eyeroll:: should have been a shoe-in for any Ivy. She hasn't gotten in one. I think I'll sue.

fabrizio

If I ever said that was the case, please find the post. On second thought, don't bother because you won't find it; I never said "URM" status results in automatic admission "for any Ivy" or any school, for that matter. What I did say is that "URM" status is preferred, but preferred is not the same as guaranteed. Often times these distinct words are conflated by people who support racial preferences to argue that racial preferences don't exist, which is just a bit disingenuous IMO.

HomeSchoolNewbe

Really?
are colleges racist?

HomeSchoolNewbe

Fabrizio- "Often times these distinct words are conflated by people who support racial preferences to argue that racial preferences don't exist, which is just a bit disingenuous IMO."

I didn't say they didn't t exist; I just doubt they are the HUGE boost some imagine it to be.
And, just for the record, I don't support any preferences (inc. legacy, full pay, & athletic) in Admissions, for you to assume I do is a bit disingenuous on your part, IMHO.
What I don't like is the assumption that admission was denied solely based on race. As if everything about you was perfect, except your race, sounds like classic bratty scapegoat behavior. It's not my fault I didn't win; it's yours.....

fabrizio

"You got in because you're a 'URM'" is not the same thing as "If you're a 'URM,' you'll get in." It's easy to imagine a student being admitted for prowess in mathematics. Does that mean that prowess in mathematics guarantees admission to "any Ivy"? No.

So maybe we should do away with racial preferences, then. People will still get rejected, and they can't complain that it was because of their racial classification.

HomeSchoolNewbe

Nice try. But no, I don't see the difference. In fact, if you would just admit that you did say what you claim to have not intended to say; I would applaud your honesty.

I'm not sure how to respond to this trite declaration, as I previously mentioned I do not support ANY preferences in Admissions. Sooooo with that firmly in mind, as soon as we do away with preferences for the wealthy, legacy, and athletics; I'm on board. I think its hypocritical to have it any other way.

fabrizio

Oh, you don't see the difference? So you think that all you have to do get admitted to "any Ivy" is be good at something? There are more applicants who are "good at something" than there are spots at "any Ivy." Someone who's admitted for being good at math at Princeton, for example, doesn't mean Princeton has to accept every applicant who is good at math. (As an aside, this rationale is often used to justify racial preferences, which is a non sequitur because while it is true, it does not directly or even indirectly lead to an argument for racial preferences.)

I'm not saying the Ivies are the best; I'm just using your words verbatim ("any Ivy") to drive home the point that "If A, then B" is not equivalent to "If B, then A." You did homeschool your daughter in geometric logic, yes?

OK. I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. I've read similar posts far too often from parents who adamantly supported racial preferences, in violation of my own rejoinder to you above that "If A, then B" is not the same as "If B, then A."

StitchInTime

Via Rasmussen Reports:

HomeSchoolNewbe

Honestly, you don't have to have taken Advanced Logic (which I did), nor taught geometric logic(which I didn't) to recognize a weak arguement when you see one.
You said it. Admit it.

Now, what I would like to see is the same activism against full pay, legacy, and athletic preferences as we do for racial preferences. Fabrizio, you are against all preferences, right?

fabrizio

So you're telling me that "If A, then B" means I can conclude "If B, then A"?

I am not. If we want to help students who are truly disadvantaged, I'm totally fine with socioeconomic preferences. For the other preferences you listed, developmental admits at least result in new chaired professorships, buildings, and so forth, and athletes are admitted because they're good at playing sport X, not because they're "URM." One reason you don't hear high schoolers complaining that "their spot" was "taken" by an athlete is because on some level, they recognize that the athlete is better than them in something.

NuclearPenguins

Athletes at least had to work hard or be naturally talented at what they do. Sports is also a big money maker for schools and even for smaller schools it is good publicity. Arguably sports foster school unity and provide students something to rally around. Athletes need perseverance and dedication to get to where they are. You don't work hard at being a URM, and neither can somebody be naturally talented in being a URM.

As for legacy, the argument there is that this will develop and/or maintain a loyal donor base.

Meanwhile for full pay, sometimes schools need students who can pay more. If a large portion of the people admitted into school need significant amounts of financial aid, the school might not be able to fund certain programs and that will lead to cuts. Or, they can't update to the latest equipment in classrooms.

See the rationale there?

Also: Heather Mac Donald: How Affirmative Action Backfires | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

performersmom

It is interesting that all this is coming up again when the economy is so weak...
MANY feel disadvantaged right now, of ALL races or by any other measure.

And also when the racial proportions of the population are moving into significant new zones.
And when the definition of race is becoming more difficult.

Are we seeing reverse discrimination?
Or how an effort to reduce racist thinking is promoting it?
Or that the original purpose of the policy is no longer valid? Or that the techniques of the policy no longer accomplish the originally intended goals?
What forms of being disadvantaged are most in need of redress in our times?

Obviously, the populace does not fully understand the techniques, the original reasons for the policies, so it would be nice for all this to be made crystal clear... Only then should the debate happen, and will it happen with clarity about what has become nonsensical and what has not.

Bay

This is a new one. How dare colleges give preference to students who can actually pay the full cost of going there!

Philovitist

Sorry, but affirmative action doesn't focus on socioeconomic status instead of race because it is the race as a whole that is on a lower level in the society. We need more URMs not just reaching the middle class out of poverty, but obtaining the social capital and education conducive to truly becoming leaders in their societies. These highly successful people can serve as beacons and inspiration for other URMs in bad conditions (for racial reasons), much as they currently do for sports and other stereotypically URM sectors.

We need more successful URM scientists, more successful URM CEOs leading Fortune 500 companies, more successful URM writers, etc. By putting an especial investment into the human capital of URMs, you help put them on the equal footing with the majority race which has for so long worked to keep this from happening.

Blacks still haven't recovered from their cultural history. Their integration into society is still not yet complete, and race still constitutes a major problem in the US. This recession has hurt them even MORE than it has hurt the ehites, with both the unemployment gap and socioeconomic gap between whites and blacks only widening since the turn of the century. Affirmative action is still necessary.

cortana431

^ Even if we 'need' URMs in such positions its not up to us give them those things. They must have the ability to lead and succeed academically inherently.