<p>There are 12% of blacks in the U.S. and top colleges have between 8-4% blacks, so the number of blacks at top colleges obviously doesn’t represent the percentage in the U.S. This is one example, but DO NOT say that the reason you weren’t admitted to a top college is because a minority “took your spot” IT IS BECAUSE YOU AREN’T GOOD ENOUGH (an overstatement but you get the idea). </p>
<p>I kind of thought that anyone posting on this forum would understand that freedom of association applies to private individuals as well as private institutions. My bad.</p>
<p>Now I’m frustrated. The government can freely tap into regulations of my private life, correct? I doesn’t necessarily have to be the same standard that they could impose on private universities, the point is that they have influence and power over me in my life at home. And no, “the uber powerful free nation of America” is not above that nor has it ever been really. So why can’t they impose on private universities as well?</p>
<p>I’d turn being “owned” onto you, yet you’d be required to possess the mental intellect to understand that you’d been “owned”. Which thus far you’ve been incapable of unfortunately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some races are overrepresented, some underrepresented. You can’t just wave statistics of one ethnicity around when the issue is general minorities. </p>
<p>And I’m not sure what that percentage is supposed to mean anyway, whether it represents them pointblank is irrelevant. That changes nothing about the affirmative action, it doesn’t take an entirely unified front to take advantage of any system.</p>
<p>Andocrotus, I’m sorry you feel the need to insult people. You are comparing apples to oranges. The government can intrude on private universities in some of the same ways they can intrude on your in your home. Taxation, for example. The government has some of the same limits when it comes to private citizens or private institutions, e.g., freedom of association.</p>
<p>So for you to say that because the government can intrude on your life in area A, means they should intrude on a private university in area B makes no sense. Do you think you should be bound by OSHA regulations when you change a light bulb just because a private university is?</p>
Those choices are already formed with the prevailing admissions structure though. A high income Asian student knows that with a 2100/2400 SAT score they will not get into an Ivy unless they have some hook of some sort. That same score, with no hook, would be very competitive for a high income black student.</p>
<p>w/e I’m already in college I shouldn’t even be worrying about this. I probably only got in cause I’m a minority though. I’m def not qualified for the school I was accepted to. I don’t even feel bad for the person who’s spot I stole…</p>
Umm, yeah, that’s why affirmative action exists - because underrepresented groups do not have the same level of scores as overrepresented groups. The differential in scores is why the ‘overrepresented’ & ‘underrepresented’ issues exist in the first place.</p>
<p>You were the one who felt the need to mock and trivialize my posts, don’t play the role of victim as you struck first. You can’t just freely recede on a whim by playing the “you’re being rude card.”</p>
<p>Why don’t you understand the context? I’ve done my best to make my opinions obvious and completely clear, it’s pretty simple really. </p>
<p>We’ll try again… Statement in quotes, description without.</p>
<p>“If the government can intrude on my domestic life than it can intrude on universities, public or private.” Note, this is a general statement, you chose to make it specific. My opposition attempted to attest to private universities being “untouchable” or so to speak just based on them not getting public funding. I was writing that the government sure as hell can implement standards unto private schools, the word private in of itself is not a shield from the government’s power. I’m not sure why you chose to look tree to tree rather than forest to forest, but you did. It was never about the individual trees [issues], they don’t matter in reason, it was about the forest [domestic lives v. private universities]. It doesn’t matter if the individual issues are ideal matches, the point is that essentially the private universities and domestic lives of America’s individuals are comparable.</p>
<p>No, I asked you a question because I was genuinely confused about your assertion, given that most reasonable people compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. </p>
<p>I am sorry you took it the wrong way, but that was totally your choice.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CC is usually a good resource of info/discussion but I hate it for reasons like this. People are always analyzing/quoting other people’s posts. It annoys me. This is supposed to be a place of light discussion. I’m sure that most people on here are smart enough to find problems with any post if they dug deep enough, but it’s really not worth it.</p>
<p>p.s. let’s see if there will be that guy who will quote me and denigrate my erroneous post lol</p>
<p>Hypocrite, as if you’re the poster child for positive, productive forum etiquette and behavior.</p>
<p>And your little “p.s.” was just an obvious but clever, yet at the same time, common tactic utilized to prevent scrutiny and prostest against your post.</p>
<p>In which country? In the United States, the qualifications to vote are basically being a citizen who is at least 18 years of age by the relevant election. There are no gradations or anything that differentiates one class of voter from another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, jive87 was the poster child for positive, productive forum etiquette and behavior. It was actually a pretty big deal and there was a statewide Connecticut talent search, an essay contest, and I think he wound up getting a signed certificate from the Governor for his trouble. </p>
<p>So next time do your research before you get all sarcastic.</p>
<p>^
“In which country? In the United States, the qualifications to vote are basically being a citizen who is at least 18 years of age by the relevant election. There are no gradations or anything that differentiates one class of voter from another.”</p>
<p>I deleted my post. Perhaps that is what you are referring to. I knew I really wasn’t wanting to get into this. My point was, that like a baseline qualification to vote, there may be a baseline qualification to get into elite schools. Just like there is no extra vote for paying more taxes, there may not be extra points for scoring over 2000 on the SAT. I wont argue that it is a good analogy.</p>
<p>I’ve yet to meet anyone who claims that my proposal, as follows, is unfair:</p>
<p>Private universities can use racial classification as a factor in their admissions if they so desire. All they have to do in return is forfeit federal funding and finance their desired admissions scheme out of their own pockets (ie. you want it, you pay for it).</p>
<p>I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, that we should end holistic admissions. Private universities can be as holistic as they want to be. But if they’re factoring in racial classification at all, then they’ve got to distance themselves from Uncle Sam’s money.</p>
<p>The white resentment against affirmative action (when it comes to university admissions) wishfully assumes two fictitious notions.</p>
<p>The first erroneous idea is that white privilege is a thing of the past. The fact of the matter is that there is affirmative action for white people in the form of legacies, athletic scholarships and recruitment for “white sports”, and preference for alumni of elite prep schools which tend to be white-dominated. While it may be true that whites of lower classes are left out of this, we are talking about race undivided by class here. </p>
<p>The second erroneous idea is that “unqualified” blacks and Latinos are taking university enrollment spaces away from whites. The fact is that if admissions became race-blind and more focused on grades and scores, it would be Asians that would be the biggest beneficiaries. Asians may be overrepresented in colleges in relation to their national population, but they’re arguably underrepresented given their qualifications.</p>