<p>It’s not about “deserving” - for anyone - Black, white, green. It’s what adds to the institution’s perceived quality among and for the folks who aren’t “diverse”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Justice Thomas refers to it as colleges seeking “racial aesthetics”.</p>
<p>Ah, but it is much more than that, because (when not aimed solely at face diversity), it does indeed enhance academic quality, both in and out of the classroom, for everyone. (When it comes to “face” diversity, I agree, from the institutions’ point of view - though from a “fairness” perspective it is nice to see the wealthy white folks who benefit from AA forced to “share”); I support AA from a societal viewpoint, rather than from that of the institution – but this is more easily achieved by diversifying state universities, which is where the societal interest more strongly lies.)</p>
<p>i always thought that I was a staunch supporter of affirmative action. I think it is awesome that in some cases, people from underprivileged backgrounds are given a better chance to succeed through this system. However, i am FURIOUS that it has been turned around so that now those in the majority find it more or less impossible to get into college. I experienced this firsthand. </p>
<p>A multiracial classmate with WORSE test scores and GPA and less ECs than myself was accepted to every presitigious university he applied to (Northwestern, Pomona, U Chicago), while i was waitlisted or rejected everywhere except my safety schools. </p>
<p>This person comes from an almost identical economic background to me - a moderately privileged suburbanite with at least one white parent. But because his father was part black, he has the world handed to him on a platter when he applies to schools. This is ridiculous. He enjoyed EVERY opportunity that his white classmates had. His race never presented him any hardship - he’s employed, respected by peers and teachers. So am I, but because I am white, I’ll end up at a lower-tier institution, despite my superior qualifications. </p>
<p>And all this so that the school shows “diversity” in its racial percentages and maybe gets a few more multi-cultural grants.</p>
<p>If you’re going to employ affirmative action, at least find somebody who actually deserves it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s not accurate. Everybody who wants to go to college in the US gets to go to college. The percentage of URMs in colleges is still very small and below their representation in society at large, which is why they are Underrepresented Minorities. Thus, when they are admitted into colleges, they are not taking away spots. Interesting that you do not aim your ire at athletes or legacies.</p>
<p>ronlivs-nicely said i agree with everything you said, and yes i have read up on the chinese revolution.</p>
<p>Dear Jamimom,</p>
<p>Thank you very much. Very very nice words for me. Yes, it hurts very much sometimes, especially to see S’s dissappointment. But as you said one has to understand why certain rules and policies were made, and how some of us individuals are just plain unlucky to get caught in them sometimes unfairly. I explain all this in detail to S, and it has helped him greatly. </p>
<p>India implemented AA right at independence and a minimum 18% for AA in higher education and government jobs is a constituional guarentee provided in the very first draft of the constitution. Different states have expanded (or not expanded) the AA percentages according to the requirements of the individual state. It has been severely abused too sometimes. As I said no one looks any different, it is but a peice of paper, so some affluent people are known to buy (lower) caste certificates off of corrupt government officials ! But if even half of the reserved places go to genuine candidates, I think the system has succeeded.</p>
<p>I see AA as more than just diversity in terms of a wholesome learning experience for all the students in an institution. I think, as Mini says, it is a society-level thing, and about empowerment of people whose voices and opinions did not have much influence in the society for a long time. </p>
<p>Also I think there are differences between the stories of the Asians/Indian immigrants and Afro/Latino Americans. I dont want to bore you all with my analysis, but the historical baggages vastly differ. Also immigrants hardly have any history at all in this country unlike the Native and Afro Americans.</p>
<p>Also, a Chinese/Indian who comes here with a masters in chemical engg but has to initially struggle with ESL and grad school poverty is very different from the nearly-unschooled latino immigrant who comes here to work on meagre wages. Immigrants who come here after having had a good start in their own countries in terms of education certainly have very clear advantages.</p>
<p>We, who are considered previliged/ORM, apart from the immediate family (parents) have a wide social circle of friends, relatives and acquintances, most of whom are well-educated, well-positioned and provide us with a lot of information, knowledge and contacts. We dont even realise how much information is being conciously and unconciously absorbed right from birth. That would be another clear advantage which even many second-generation AA beneficiaries might not have.</p>
<p>I am not trying to argue my point, just trying to bring to this debate a slightly different view-point. I am not belittling any child’s dissappointment. I myself lost an engg seat in an elite college, 27 years ago, by a 1% point, a mere 4 marks out of 600, in the non-AA quota wherein the cut-off was fixed at 90%. The cut off for the first category AA was 70%, and the second category 50%. The first category typically had people like myself in most respects - affluence, parental education etc. I was very angry at myself for missing those 4 stupid marks. Even today I sometimes dream that I get a corrected mark sheet and I am telling myself ‘I must get this into that engg college in time for admisisons’ !!</p>
<p>marite why is it that you think that opponents of AA are proponents of legacy preferences? I’ve never heard anyone speak favourably of them other than development officers and the Alumni Club presidents and indeed I don’t know that they are all the common. I know my Alma Mater doesn’t give them. As for atheletic preferences I don’t see them as being any different then Art and Music school admits. It is a specialized talent the school is after. On the other hand if a school wants to drop competitive atheletics I don’t have an issue with that either.</p>
<p>Bottom line question is why are you putting up this straw man to knock down. Also what do you call a very small percentage of URM’s in colleges? The rate might be marginally lower for Black men but doesn’t seem to be lower for Black women. Further the college enrollment rate for Black men seems to be fluctuating for reasons unrelated to either AA or racial attitudes in the country at large. But not unrelated to the economy. <a href=“http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/45_AA_collegeenrollment.html[/url]”>http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/45_AA_collegeenrollment.html</a></p>
<p>"The year 2000 witnessed the highest recorded college enrollment and completion rate (67.3%) for young black women with high school diplomas, a rate that exceeded the rate for young white men (64.5%)…</p>
<p>Racial gaps in college enrollment and completion narrowed during several periods only to widen again. In 1967, young black male (42%) and female (33%) high school graduates were about a third less likely than their white counterparts (60% and 46%) to have enrolled in or completed college. But by 1976, young black men and women (both 50%) had virtually closed the gap with white women (51%), and approached the percentages for white men (56%) which had declined from a peak of 63% in 1969. The rates for blacks declined to about 42% for men and 46% for women in 1981, and did not increase consistently again until 1991, while those for white women increased steadily after 1981 and those for white men increased after 1987."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/college.htm[/url]”>http://www.jointcenter.org/DB/factsheet/college.htm</a></p>
<p>Sugee, thanks for the info on India’s AA efforts. I really had no idea. As you can see from this thread, this is a hot, hot issue here. Your observation of the educated immigrant vs familes who have years of manual labor as their lot in life points out a crucial difference. Actually, I make it even simpler. Every child who has parents who are advocating and supporting education is at an advantage, a huge advantage over kids who do not. Though it is touching to hear of the tremendous sacrifices parents make to ensure that their kids get a top education which is of course the best preparation for a seat at a top college, one should remember that it is the parents doing the work, making the sacrifices, and the child benefitting. Applicants are assessed by their opportunitis and backgrounds and in assessing certain kids, despite an economically poor household, the resources of the household and the energies of the parent are directed to the child’s education. THat is a big difference from a child whose parents have not put this kind of time into preparing him for college.</p>
<p>**ThomYorke **</p>
<p>CC parents, you are so thoughtful and patient but this thread was started by a 17 year old who probably posted it for kicks. His other posts suggest he is trying to decide between UVA and UMich.</p>
<p>Such a hard life. No wonder he is bitter.</p>
<p>Many a parent who would shrug off being passed over for promotion or loosing a contract because of AA or minority set asides with a comment to the effect that “Well paybacks are hell” would become very angry at the prospects of their own child being the one to foot the bill for the White race. It is one thing for Dad to bear the White Man’s burden but another to have it pawned off on his offspring. That is why this is such a hot button issue.</p>
<p>Another part of the problem is that while most Black folk see themselves as disadvantaged by history and thus entitled to reparations of one kind or another most Whites don’t see themselves as especially advantaged or in any case as particularly reponsible for the situation Blacks perceive themselves to be in. How many Italian Americans or Slovaks or Poles were even in this country in 1865? How many Irish and of them how many spilled their blood at Antietam and Gettsyburg fighting to end slavery? How many Russian Jews or Norwegians or Hungarians or Lebanese benefited from the profits of Slavery or were ever in a position to exploit Black labor? In the name of fighting racism the proponents of AA lump all White people together into one large undifferentiated mass and ask them to offer up the dreams of their children in payment for a debt owed to the fathers and grandfathers and long dead ancestors of their childrens minority peers.</p>
<p>Patuxent,</p>
<p>AA is not about revenge, punishment etc. Say a person A has been assaulted by person B. Say A has sufferred severe psychological damage from the assault. Efforts put into treating and rehabilitating A has nothing to do with punishing B. Similarly helping URMs has nothing to do with punishing anyone’s ancestors. </p>
<p>Jamimom,</p>
<p>I do agree completely that we Asians/Indians do far more for our children than is good for them !! Sometimes, when I think of how much S might have done if I had stayed hands-off, it scares me. Because in my heart I know that what he is truely capable of as of today, is what he would have acheived without my help. Also true that the peer pressure to throw big college names around is very huge in our social circles :-)</p>
<p>I see the issue of AA as a means of colleges trying to justify the tax monies and donations they receive from ALL Americans. It defies logic to think that state legislatures and governors can justify appropriating tax dollars to these institutions when a significant proportion of the taxpayers children arent able to attend these same institutions. The same can be said for corporations donating money to private colleges. Do you think a company with minority workers will continue to donate to colleges that do not make and effort to enroll minority students? Probably not. Eliminating AA would mean that a few more non-URMs would be accepted to these institutions but the financial repercussions would hurt all students?</p>
<p>AA is really less about diversity or helping the 6% URMs get a college education but more about reducing the individual cost for the 94% non-URMs without incurring the minority populations wrath.</p>
<p>Patuxent:</p>
<p>I don’t see opponents of AA getting their knickers into a twist over legacies or athletes. If someone is denied admission it’s always because a URM got his spot, isn’t it? Yes, there are plenty of criticisms of legacies and athletes, but it’s usually not by the same people who criticize AA. Yet, legacies are still overwhelmingly benefitting caucasians. In fact, owing to athletics admissions, the proportion of students admitted under AA is probably even lower than the URM representation on campuses, which is already lower than their proportion in society at large.</p>
<p>
Again think about the financial repercussions at my alma mater, alumni donations triple the year after we went to the Rose Bowl and remained at that level for 2 additional years. A competitive football or basketball program brings in BIG MONEY (the colleges share of NCAA TV revenue, alumni donations, corporate donations, etc) that benefits not only the athletic department but also the whole student body.</p>
<p>Do you think these universities would be able to recruit and keep top minority athletes if they are the only ones of their race on campus?</p>
<p>favoritism to atheletes is different from favoritism to URMs because being an athletic recruit is considered a "hook’…it can be compared to favoring an applicant who was nationally renowned in piano or a published poet without amazing grades. Atheletes who are recruited usually are at least all state, and probably participated/won in many national competitions/etc. It can be viewed as a very strong EC. Plus, athletic recruits bring schools $$, money to fund financial aid, scholarships, improving the school, etc. </p>
<p>As for legacies, I am very much against it. Now, if an applicant whos father donated 3 million dollars to the school and will cease his donations if his son/daughter was not accepted by the school, I can understand if the college gives an edge to that applicant. However, applicants with members of the family who simply attended the school should not be given an edge, because to me it makes absolutely no sense why they would. It definitely restricts the beneficiaries to wealthier white families who had settled here long before new immigrants. </p>
<p>Also, to the comment about asians who come to the US with masters degrees: that is true to some extent…many asian immigrants were former peasants from China who seek a better life in the US. Many have to live on low paying jobs working in grocery stores, take out restaurants, etc. Immigrants who arrived here with education are better off, yes, but not completely. Many still have to live on low paying jobs to survive in the US…to pay for rent, food, college tuition, send money back to their families… Also, to even get a college education back in asian countries like China (I’m using china bc I have the most knowledge about it) is EXTREMELY difficult. Anyways, my point is that the struggles many “ORMs” have to face are sometimes ignored or understated. Just because many have ended up with a wealthier lifestyle, it doesnt mean that they haven’t faced the same struggles many URM famlies are facing now.</p>
<p>Just to clarify something:</p>
<p>Yes, it’s hard to get a college education in China…if you’re rural. </p>
<p>And it’s exceedingly easy to get on in Japan and Korea.</p>
<p>Well marite I would hope that not every minority on campus is an AA admit. But either way you are the one with the inconsistent view. You object to underqualified people being admitted you only object to which underqualified people are admitted - and that assumes that legacy admits even are under qualified. I suspect that would vary from institution to institution.</p>
<p>The only one on this board who has made a good or defensible arguement for AA is nightshiftworker - How can we ask everyone to pay for schools through appropriated funds that only some benefit from. There is some merit in that however flat out stupid people of all races work and pay taxes too and they don’t get in to college. Presummably they benefit from from the increased productivity of the smarter folks they pay to educate.</p>
<p>Sugee a lot of things in life are a zero sum game. If I set aside a spot for people whose last names begin A there is one less spot for everyone else. Similarly if A needs rehabilitation because he suffered mental and/or physical trauma at the hands of B what right do you or I have to tell C he has to pay for A’s rehab or even that you and I and C are going to jointly pay for it.</p>
<p>If need blind admissions is good what is wrong with race and legacy blind admissions? Why is that not the right answer?</p>
<p>It is the right answer.</p>