<p>Legacies, Athletes, Development- they are all treated the same as the rest of the applicant pool- yeah right</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A lot of highly selective schools would welcome the Maytag repairman’s son with open arms. Come to think of it, I did meet a young man from Appalachia who was attending Harvard on full scholarship. He came from a town where a Maytag repairman would probably have qualified as "</p>
<p>I find it hard to get too upset over affirmative action - which is mostly a result of growing up white, upper-middle class in a nice New England town, with native intelligence and parents who care about me. Last time I checked, I started off with a leg up on 99% of the US population - and I can’t begrudge anything to those people who started off with a heck of a lot less and still manage to be viable for the same opportunities that I am viable for.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I don’t like any form of bias or discrimination that either promotes or lessens the chances of college admission or job promotion based on anything other than pure merit. I am just as much against affirmative action as I am against preferential treatment through legacies!</p>
<p>I do understand the argument about why some under represented minorities need some help due to past discrimination. My problems with affirmative action are that:</p>
<ol>
<li>It has gone on far too long. I remember hearing about it at least 40 year ago.</li>
<li>I never could understand why one kid gets some “affirmative relief” when there is no proof that his parents or grandparents ever suffered significant discrimination. For all we know, the kid may not come from a disadvantaged home. Should we give preferential treatment for black kids whose parents are doctors or lawyers simply because of the color of that kid’s skin?</li>
</ol>
<p>I might be pursuaded if the lifestyle produced a disadvanged kid regardless of race or creed. Thus, a poor kid from West Virginia who attended a mediocre high school and demonstrates some very decent achievement should be looked at differently than a kid from a high school located in a wealthy area. To me this is like seeing a flower bloom in the desert. It needs special care.</p>
<p>Basing affirmative action on race, regardless of background seems very absurd. I never did believe in fighting fire with fire! Fighting discrimination with discrimination doesn’t seem right to me at all especially without any showing of prior discrimination or of any showing of economic disadvantage.</p>
<p>Bottom line: I am not against affirmative action if there was a good showing of economic disadvantage period.</p>
<p>Race really is not a function of the skin color, but rather a function of culture. The skin color is merely symbolic, a visual differentiator. Culture is a complex phenomenon, drawing its traditions, practices, attitudes as well as self-steem/self-worth/self-confidence from history and goes far beyond economics. </p>
<p>In India, the state I come from ‘reserves’ 69% of seats in institutions of higher education run by the state (for medicine and engineering the State-run institutions are the best in terms of facilities, research funding and faculty) for AA based on caste. Racially all castes are the same in India, a few generations ago dress and names differentiated people, but no more. So the difference is literally on paper, the birth certificate that bears the caste of the parents. But the afore-said cultural differences are certainly there especially in terms of self-esteem depending on how highly one’s caste was ranked historically. </p>
<p>Besides my state, no other state has significant AA - perhaps 20 to 30%. About 15 years ago, a commision appointed to audit AA nationally came up with the conclusion that 50% ‘reservations’ were required everywhere in order to bring about equality. There were riots everywhere, a couple of upper-caste students committed public suicide by immolating themselves. The central government that appointed the commisission was brought down in the immediate elections. (In my own state, the implementation of the 69% quota that had taken place ten years before the said commission had been very peaceful, no riots or anything.)</p>
<p>My state has not been compromised on meriticracy. In the past 30 years, the state has developed enormously, and attracted maximum FDR (foreign investments) last year due to its superior infrastructure, work-ethics and brain-power. </p>
<p>The problem is with the understanding of AA. It is not charity. It is not a largesse. It is not justice (righting wrongs). It is about distributing opportunities in the most equitable way. When this is not understood by many parents themselves, children are left misguided, and when they are unable to get into their choice institutions they are bitter and frustrated.</p>
<p>I hope this is not a politically insensitive statement, also I have been living here only for 8 years now, but will I be right in saying that Powell’s son is not insulated from day-to-day exposure to discrimination or prejudices any more than the cabbie’s son in Harlem ?</p>
<p>Sugee, an excellent post, and some interesting info. Thank you for sharing this with us, as it puts an international spin on the whole issue of URMs. The URM category in elite college admissions has been a subject of all sorts of flames, so competitive the slot are and so high the desire is to get a seat in one of those schools. Every advantage, every issues is scrutinized. </p>
<p>I would say that Colin Powell’s son is much more insulated from day-to-day exposure to discrimination or prejudices than the cabbie’s son in Harlem, because he is in a “celebrity” circle and because of the type of people that he will tend to be with. THere are all kinds of advantages to be had, when your parent is a well known figure, and some disadvantages as well. But I doubt his life is going to be like most kids, regardless of color because of factors other race. Having said that, there is the old Malcolm X question that goes something like this, “What do they call a black PHD in…?” The answere is not “Dr” or Professor.</p>
<p>Sugee,
Like jamimom, I also really appreciate your post because it emphasizes the critical fact that perspective & breadth of experience tend to determine how a non-URM views AA.</p>
<p>For those of us from States with public education of (overall) questionable quality – & where URMs tend to be congregated in under-performing high schools (both State-determined & nationally determined) – I actually think it is reasonable to be concerned about whether most publically educated URMs will be able to compete & succeed at top schools. But that is “most,” not all. Where URMs have been able to move into high-performing school districts, the situation dramatically changes. I have taught URMs at top public schools. Their performance, ability, & promise was indistinguishable from non-URMs. In fact, there was not a single one of them that was not in the top 15% of the student body – clearly outperforming, then, hundreds of non-URMs.</p>
<p>Of course then there’s the whole other category of the URMs who have not been so lucky to be attending those schools, but have attended quite underperforming h.s.'s. – being virtually the only excellent graduating Senior. Some such students have posted on CC over the last yr. Those are people of extraordinary motivation & drive – overcoming triple hurdles of financial hardship, minority status, & the oft-forgotten pressures of peer conformity. The latter challenge is a test of personal courage which tends not to go unnoticed by adcoms. I think if anything such students are role models, not charity cases.</p>
<p>I think Epiphany touches on the crux of the URM issue. I don’t know anyone who admits to begrudging someone disadvantaged an edge in admissions. (though some of those financial aid thread where they are saying the poor have it made are edging towards that stance at times) The big problem with affirmative action occurs when URM preference occurs to a student who is every bit as advantaged as anyone. In my D’s school a few years ago, a young lady of color with high 1300’s on the SAT1s and who was top 10 in the class was accepted to Harvard over a number of classmates who not only had higher stats, but really much more impressive resumes. And the girl and her brother were both in private schools with the parents paying full freight, driving very nice cars, living in a prestigious neighborhood and having high paying jobs. Both also college educated. The “hook” was that the girl was African American. Period. And she and her family happily and defiantly admitted it. The valedictorian was waitlisted at Harvard and a couple of other schools, though admitted to a number of good schools to. But this left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth.</p>
<p>But until a school has achieved the proportions of what they want, they should be allowed to make allowances on things like color, sex. I know that when Vassar, Goucher went coed, the bar was waaaaay lower for the guys than the girls. You didn’t hear much complaining about that. The reason made sense to everyone. The school was temporarily making this concession until it reached an equilibrium in this area where they felt comfortable. Vassar seems to be there now or close to it, though I hear that it is still a bit easier for males, something I also hear is a situation for many LACS, since the balance just swings more to the girls. Take a peek at Swarthmores male/female stats and you’ll see what I mean. On the other hand, tech schools will often bend over for the girls and even given them merit money at lower stats than males. They again are trying to even things up. And so it is with URMs. Because URMs are a crucial factor in our discussion, policies, and, yes, problems, to leave their numbers to where they would be if things were done on a color blind basis would compromise where we want to be in other more important issues. This is a decision colleges have made and they seem to be pretty unanimous in it. Most of the time it is not a big deal. No one cares is a non selective school gives leeway to a URM. It’s the HPYs where it is so many families and kids’ life dreams that are at stake, where the resentment mounts.</p>
<p>To assume that URM are less intelligent is plain wrong. I think poor URM should be helped in admission process in order to allow other URM from the urban locations to work hard. I think AA is good but with a qualification as it allows diversity in student body. A kid whose parents are URM professional should not have any leg up in admission. But a kid who comes from a poor background should be given a huge leg up. We need to take politics out and help who need it the most. Rich URM should be treated like Asian or Caucasian. </p>
<p>If this happens, nobody can blame that URM are less intelligent which they are not, just they have circumstances to be blamed which does not allow them to flourish. I think similar treatments should be extended to poor white and Asian kids too.</p>
<p>“In my D’s school a few years ago, a young lady of color with high 1300’s on the SAT1s and who was top 10 in the class was accepted to Harvard over a number of classmates who not only had higher stats, but really much more impressive resumes. And the girl and her brother were both in private schools with the parents paying full freight, driving very nice cars, living in a prestigious neighborhood and having high paying jobs.”</p>
<p>jamimom your points prove that this example that makes problem for URM policy. School needs to help some poor URM from a ghetto place or a poor URM kid who attend the school on financial aid. I wish colleges do it write and assert that why it is important to give a promising but poor URM over a rich but lazy and underperforming URM.</p>
<p>Parentny, as I posted, the statement you highlighted is the crux of the URM situation. The fact of the matter is that there are not enough URMs, particularly African American males that have the combined grades and test scores to make the cuts at a lot of the selective colleges. THere are a lot of reasons given for this fact, but it does not change the fact. BUt for a number of social reasons, it has been deemed important that there is URM representation at these colleges that is beyond what the stats will provide.</p>
<p>My opinion is that there are cultures, the Asian, Indian and some of the Eastern European ones, the Jewish families, to mention a few where education is the crown jewel, the end all to all. So the kids are prepped from very young ages to do well academically and test well. I am not convinced this is the way for all of us to go, because I see too many families step over the line of appropriateness in this endeavor. Though it sounds noble that Dad is working 90 hours a week in back breaking labor and mom is scrubbing floor and cleaning lye vats so that the kid can go to Harvard and has his study time, tutors and good schools, I don’t buy into that. I would not want any loved one of mine sacrificing self, health, life span, and standard of living to a certain degree for me or any other loved ones to have a shot at top schools. Even if that is really what they want. There are other things in life, other perspectives, and this objective seems to me to be terribly narrow. So I am not as impressed as some with the hard working parent who is giving his all for the kid to go to Harvard. There is a lot to learn from some other perspectives. And having tutored the SATs and APs for 30 years, intensively for 20, I can tell you that focusing on the old worksheets, reading and test prepping can really bring up the scores. But is this the best use of time for people? I guess for some it is. But when I was faced with the issue of my girls who I knew were challenged on test scores, but I knew what kind of time and intensity it would take to bring them up the 200 points they would need for elite colleges and to take this away from their lives which I felt was well lived was not worth it. Sometimes it might be. So there are a number of issues involved here. I do believe that URMs do need to focus more on test prep. For all the tutoring I do, I have only gotten a handful of URMs interested in hiring me. My base tends to be mostly Asian, and some of those families live at poverty level, but they will pay me before spending a dime on anything else.</p>
<p>Colleges to give a promising and poor URM or non URM preference over those who are underperforming given their advantages. As I posted elsewhere, adcoms hate the silver spoon slackers. But there is an overriding desire for the URM population at the schools to be at a threshhold levels that is not met by the test scores and grades of the population at this time. So for now there aer kids who are getting in with the color card giving them a tip, a very heavy tip, and that is the big bone of contention with AA that is making people bleed.</p>
<p>It is not my position, btw, that only the students I typify in my 3rd paragraph above deserve special consideration by top colleges – as opposed to those in paragraph 2. I would hope that both examples are represented in elite colleges, as they both shatter stereotypes & promote social & economic integration. I have never met a student of the type in paragraph 2 that does not continue to experience the polarity of inherited ethnicity vs. acquired class as a conflict which can undermine ambition, <em>especially</em> academic ambition. That qualifies as a challenge that a suburban, white, N’Easterner probably doesn’t have.</p>
<p>The unfortunate example of the A’Am’n that jamimom cites would perhaps not have been so lucky with her acceptance(s) if at a smaller high school with greater scrutiny & reporting of the “personal qualities” angle – that is, if she applied to schools other than, or in addition to, H. With regard to H in particular, “Attitude”/overconfidence is something that I have noticed recently is not necessarily a negative for H admission. And finally, adcoms have made & do make individual bad judgments now & then. Amherst & Williams come to mind. (Not my D’s choices, btw!) But the anecdote that jamimom reports does not in itself persuade me that AA should be abolished; it persuades me to research carefully the admissions history of the colleges on a student’s list. Questionable decisions about controversial candidates have implications for <em>all</em> candidates for that college, in my view – URM or non-URM. (Shoppers, beware.)</p>
<p>I agree with epiphany. Colleges do make questionable decisions about all kinds of applicants. In fact, white suburban, upper-middle class students can also underachieve for a variety of reasons, such as personal problems, or parents divorcing. Some suffer from “impostor syndrome”, a feeling that they are no longer above average, do not deserve to be where they are and are bound to fail. Sometimes, the feeling goes away after the first semester, sometimes it can be crippling. But sometimes, the adcoms had truly made a mistake. We just need to think back on the posts regarding junior who has had $45k worth of tutoring and college counseling but whose parents worry that junior lacks the self-discipline to be and study on his own in college. I doubt many URMS got the $45k package.</p>
<p>It’s time to do away with AA once and for all. AA is a system which justifies discrimination against middle class America. I am so tired of the terms URM, diversity and the like that are just excuses to disriminate against other individuals. Colleges should not be allowed to have questions on their application asking race, color or creed but should judge each application on its own merits. </p>
<p>Even though the questions are “optional”, if you don’t answer them, it is pretty certain who you are.</p>
<p>Even though it didn’t happen in the past, it is time to treat all people equally. This is no way to make up for past sins.</p>
<p>Anecdotes particularly flame, because the people in them are very real. And personal anecdotes hurt the most when your child is involved. The most bitter cases I have seen in college admissions is with classmates, where someone is accepted when another is “clearly” a better student, better resume, etc. Throw in the race card and you have a fire.</p>
<p>The crux of the matter is addressing the issue of URMs who are not disadvantaged, who come from familiesthat can afford the $45 tutoring package, are either in a good public school or private school and are really not discernable in any way from their peers except for the fact that they are URM. These are the kids the top colleges are targeting as they are the ones who tend to have the higher test scores, the type of courses and the grades to have a chance of making it through a top university program. Should they get the tip, or the tag because of the their ethnic background? Some of these kids are advantaged, pampered kids, no different from their Asian and caucasian peers. This is where the problem lies. I am not talking aboaut the athlete, the kid who has gone through adversity, the kid with some unique experience. The question is whether being URM in itself is worthy of being categorized and assessed against other URM apps rather than being in a colorblind admissions pool where frankly most of these kids are not going to cut it. It is the URM status that is of interest to the college. Colleges are saying that for now it is more important to have the URMs, advantaged or not, who can do the work and to have a reasonable population within the college community,not a quota but a enough to provide diversity. To do this the URM status is taken into consideration, often heavy consideration. I am not addressing those URMs who are admitted with heavy academic stats and ECs and are clearly top candidates regardless of their background. I am talking about those who would not be admitted without a check in the URM box.</p>
<p>“I do understand the argument about why some under represented minorities need some help due to past discrimination. My problems with affirmative action are that … It has gone on far too long. I remember hearing about it at least 40 year ago.” </p>
<p>Here a few things that have happened in my life over the last 40 years:
- I grew up in a southern town where not only the water fountains were segregated, but even the waiting room in my doctor’s office. (white patients were attended to first, and then blacks, in a closet sized room in the rear, were finally called up, usually after several hours.)
- The main library in my medium-sized southern city was also racially segregated; I was forced to use a laughably inadaquate “colored” library in my neighborhood.
- Not only were the waiting rooms in the local train station segregated, but even the cars were.<br>
- Even the nearest laundromat had a “whites only” sign on the front door.
- As a child, I dreamed of becoming a doctor one day , but well, let’s put it this way: my segregated school didn’t have math or science in 5th or 6th grades (!). By the time I transferred to the “integrated” school, I was hopelessly behind.<br>
- My grandfather, who I grew up with, voted for the first time in 1964 - when he was 65 years old. Although he dutifully paid taxes all his adult life, because he was just another colored man, meaning that he wasn’t a full-citizen, he wasn’t allowed the most basic right of most Americans.
- Most of the water in our neighborhood came from a public spigot - whites, of course, didn’t have to trek several blocks with buckets to do their washing. </p>
<h2>* When, at the age of 12, I finally entered a newly-integrated middle-school, my classmates gave me a new name, as in “where’s the ■■■■■■■■ or “the ■■■■■■ over there…?”</h2>
<pre><code> “I never could understand why one kid gets some “affirmative relief” when there is no proof that his parents or grandparents ever suffered significant discrimination. For all we know, the kid may not come from a disadvantaged home. Should we give preferential treatment for black kids whose parents are doctors or lawyers simply because of the color of that kid’s skin?”
Fortunately, my son is now one of those “black kids whose parents are doctors or lawyers,” and by implication, have never suffered the stings of racism and discrimination. I guess I’m supposed to forget all that came before - the mighty struggle I’ve made to get this far, and the continuing struggle made to insulate my family from what I suffered from in the past. Just forget and move on, right? Society doesn’t owe me or my family anything, I suppose, right?
</code></pre>
<p>kublakoth:</p>
<p>Thanks for the history reminder! Forty years is not a long time.</p>
<p>I can still remember an episode, 35 years ago, in which a male student, upon hearing that I wanted to pursue the same career as he, accused me of wanting to take away a spot from a “male breadwinner.” He seemed to think that what I considered my future career would be a sort of hobby for a woman.
As a professional woman , I don’t know how often I have been told by younger women that I am their role model. If middle-class URM students can perform that role and help other URMs to aspire to other careers than those of athletes or performers, all the more power to them.</p>
<p>Kubakloth, the “forget”, no. The move on, yes. But how to move on is the question, and what grievances should be addressed to what people? There are answers ranging from a huge class action law suit on behalf of all African Americans to “it’s all taken care of now”. Somewhere the situation lies in the middle. If you read any of my past posts on the situation, you will see that I am in favor of AA as practiced by the universities. But I do not like it because of the very situations I have described that are a direct outcome of this process.It is critical that we all understand what the crux of the issue is. I don’t think AA is payback for past discrimination so much as the importance of having an integral group of people represented in colleges, in society as they play an important role in much of what is happening today. The importance of this transcends the cosmetics of the situation which unfortunately come off not looking so good at times.</p>
<p>I am completely shocked by the anti-affirmative action comments. Since when does money make everything all right. Even with all else being “equal”, money, schools, neighborhood, what is not equal is the behavior of those in society. It remains extraordinarily difficult for minorities to succeed in our country. The fact that many do succeed is a testament to hard-work and perseverance. I have worked a great deal with schools and employers in terms of preparing URM students for later success. I can tell you the playing field is anything but level, the advantageous a white applicant has in getting and keeping a job, are enormous. The so-called merit evaluations are anything but. Again, I recommend the link I posted earlier on “white privilege,” but even that does not reflect the inequalities that exist on a daily basis. We need affirmative action, and we need it to be more aggressive not less.</p>
<p>
I don’t know if we owe you anything or not. Societies are complex systems and the question of present generations owing for past sins depends on your moral code and it’s down below the absolutes of don’t kill people etc. But I do know that I owe my own daughter and son, as white kids of privilege, the understanding of the role that privilege has played in their good fortune. I, personally, believe that the URM status in and of itself, is a good reason to let a kid into an elite school. Not just for that kid, but for the other kids, for the school itself. We are a racist society, that built a lot of wealth on the backs of people we imported here from other countries. We owe our own privileged kids an understanding of how things got the way we are, and we need to give them a sense of their responsibility to steer our society towards true meritocracy. Which it isn’t yet. Letting kids in for just grades and scores won’t get us to meritocracy yet, not given our history. The sooner we even the playing field in this country the sooner we can get to the world we all want - meritocracy. </p>
<p>I do not think it is possible to deny that discrimination still exists. I would rather have schools give up the legacy policy that has probably helped my D before they give up URM preference.</p>