<p>Taxguy, I do happen to agree with giving favorable terms to underrepresented groups that a program (or college) on the basis of factors unrelated to academics. I would applaude a school, say in the south that is comprised mainly of vanilla students, nearly all WASP, many Southern Baptist for accepting some kids who are of the Muslim faith. The value of opening that door is just beyond any numbers on the transcript as long as there is good evidence that the kids have a decent shot of being able to do the academics. I am disgusted at the list I saw of Final 4 basketball players who are able to make it through college–sad statistics. In sports even the possibility of getting through the school academic is given a short shrift. So, though I dislike what happens in highschools when the URM with a resume that is clearly not so impressive gets into an elite school over kids with more stellar achievement, I feel it is still necessary to have that leeway to get a more vibrant college and alumni community. And legacy creates this community too. Many of the schools where alumni involvement is minimal do have a problem with the feeling of continuity among the students, the alumni network is weak which affects job and situation connections, and the alumni fund is anemic. When you look at the value Princeton’s alums bring to the school, I have no doubt that legacy favoritism is not a smart choice. Again the numbers accepted have to be balanced with the goal of having a fresh crop of families as well, so it is not the case of accepting every alum’s kid, and the kids do have to be able to do the work at the school. Once you have opened the admissions criteria to be holistic, the adcoms have the freedom to consider whatever factor they want in a kid if they think his situation has the potential of offering something valuable to the school. The anger comes when the numbers–SATS, APs, Grades do not line up even when college are clear that is only one part of the picture.</p>
<p>It might be interesting to merge this discussion with the one Encomium started, “Some interesting statistics that make me laugh,” about Andover’s graduating seniors.</p>
<p>well</p>
<p>when did we start talking about SATs? lol…</p>
<p>You know what? In 100 years, AA WILL BE DESTROYED, I HAVE FAITH IN IT.</p>
<p>Taxman, i agree with you :)</p>
<p>Most blacks were born in AMERICA, and English is their FIRST LANGUAGE! if they still can’t reach the “acceptable” verbal level, I have to sacrifice for that?</p>
<p>If i throw you in Beijing now and give you 3 years to learn Chinese, you’ll be lucky if u get a 350 on the Chinese verbal sat if there is one. And if i talk fast to you, you will not understand a SINGLE word. English was like this to me first…</p>
<p>again i’m just trying to show that certain Asians are disadvantaged for making the RIGHT decision</p>
<p>What do you need to succeed: a place to live, food, water, light, pen, pencils, notebooks…AND PERSISTENCE! a LOT of blacks in my HS have better housing conditions than i do, they have pencils as well. they just dont know how to get the right answers, coz a lot of them lack persistence</p>
<p>I’m renting my school’s clarinet man! still RENTING! yet i’m become the first chair in 2.5 years.</p>
<p>HS is FULL of resources, you have to know how to use them. if you dont know that, sorry i can’t help you.</p>
<p>if you dont have lights/pens/notebooks, talk to me and i’ll buy them for u! :)</p>
<p>“if they still can’t reach the “acceptable” verbal level, I have to sacrifice for that?”</p>
<p>Yes, you do. We all do…</p>
<p>Sorry you didn’t know this before…you know so much about everything else. </p>
<p>One other thing you might want to try to learn whole you’re at it…tolerance. </p>
<p>I wonder about the level of research that’s done before immigrants come to the US. It’s starting to sound as if many are being misled about our opportunities and our value system. Clearly, America can be devisive. Once you add an immigrant viewpoint (which can vary wildly, I’m sure), you might wind up with a very confused immigrant student…confusion breeds fear…fear breeds hatred…and so on. </p>
<p>It’s bad enough that Americans have to deal with this from other Americans…but now, to add this insult to injury…</p>
<p>I wonder how widespread this is.</p>
<p>"Yes, you do. We all do…</p>
<p>Sorry you didn’t know this before…you know so much about everything else. </p>
<p>One other thing you might want to try to learn whole you’re at it…tolerance. </p>
<p>I wonder about the level of research that’s done before immigrants come to the US. It’s starting to sound as if many are being misled about our opportunities and our value system. Clearly, America can be devisive. Once you add an immigrant viewpoint (which can vary wildly, I’m sure), you might wind up with a very confused immigrant student…confusion breeds fear…fear breeds hatred…and so on"</p>
<p>then where’s the equality for opportunity? where it’s AT? many URMS have the same opportunity but they dont know how to grab them…</p>
<p>I agree with ur statement: “you might wind up with a very confused immigrant student…confusion breeds fear…fear breeds hatred…and so on” it’s true, it all started taht way</p>
<p>how widespread?
well, i live in Arlington/Fairfax/D.C. area, which is an extremely educated community. salaries for Arlingtonians are so high that Arlington ranks No. 7 or 8 on the city salary rank. (Manhatton leads of course 
)</p>
<p>and there’re poors too. but i wrote an article about AA in school newspaper, most whites even some URMs LOVE IT. coz they all hate AA. everytime u mention AA, they go like “********ttttttt”
however, 73% arlingtonians vote for democrats</p>
<p>Everyone keeps bringing up diversity as an issue. Why is race essential to diversity? Is racial diversity important or is cultural and socioeconomic diversity important?</p>
<p>Apparently what is important is that recent immigrants stuff their benighted views of merit where the sun don’t shine and shut their traps about AA and quit whinning and moaning and if they can’t do that then they should get back on the boat that brung them.</p>
<p>Have I got that about right marite, momsdream, mini? Now I am going to go hang out with all my wealthy for generations bog Irish relatives who went to Andover and Yale. All us White people are the same after all - that is why we have all these Catholic colleges in America, because Pollack steel workers and Dago pizza makers were all going to Andover and Yale.</p>
<p>Patuxent, I certainly hope that does not happen. These things do need to reviewed, discussed and debated. There will come a point I certainly hope when AA is not going to be necessary, and the watchdogs will certainly be there to make sure that it does not exist a nano second longer than it should (that is if they are effective enough in bringing about such change). And being nasty and barking up the wrong trees about the issues and not sticking to the crux of the matter will not bring the change about any sooner , in my opinion. THough I support AA, and feel that racial diversity is important, I do not like the way it is achieved but can offer no better solutions to get the more important end result. Until someone starts getting rude, nasty, harmful, they are certainly welcome to disagree with me, ideas, laws, etc, and I have never suggested that anyone leave if they don’t like it. But whining and moaning, I do not tolerate even from preschoolers and tell them that does not help their arguments or predicaments. </p>
<p>Don’t know what the dig is about Catholic colleges either. One of mine turned down ivy to go to one and it was direct line to med school for her whereas the ivy would not have been. It all depends on what you want. As someone with two kids in Catholic colleges and all of my kids in Catholic schools at one time or another (3 currently), I don’t see the great divide as Andover and Yale have shared the lists with those schools. I have had kids accepted at Andover and one at Yale. So the mix works just fine for me. The “Dago” pizza maker at our school has basically sponsored the big fund raising dinner we are having next week.</p>
<p>.>>marite, momsdream, mini?> Of the three of us, only momsdream is a URM, I believe.</p>
<p>I would simply like to address an issue that has been bothering me lately in the realm of the ivy league schools. It has become apparent to me that the ivy leagues no longer base most of the selection criteria on merit, but instead place more emphasis on making their college diverse. I attend a magnet school and am surrounded by an eclectic but sharp group of students who all settle for nothing but the best. Many of them have tried to cater themselves to the college of their dreams (whether it be Harvard, Columbia, Dartmouth or Yale) and have worked hard to achieve this since day one of entering high school. Most were reading books, and calling colleges freshman year to get a holistic view of what it took to get into an ivy league school. As the year comes to an end and more of my peers realize their crushed dreams, the selection procedure becomes more and more apparent.
What bothers me is that these schools no longer base their admissions on academic merit and personal character. They have instead focused on topics such as diversity and legacies as an important part of keeping the institution running and among the top ranking schools. While I agree that both of these issues should hold some bearing on an application I do not agree that it should be reason to lower standards of admittance. In a letter I received from one college I was informed that my SATs were not high enough to apply to a prestigious medical program, however, if I was Hispanic or African American I could apply with a score over 250 points lower than the written minimum. This entry is in no way to be taken as racism but rather as a appeal for a return of objectivity. I do not believe that diversity is achieved by color, but is instead achieved by selecting from a pool of applicants with different interests that still maintain a common goal of excellence. It is extremely misleading to say diversity is achieved by ethnicity and I believe this is simply a regression to using color as judgment. I resolutely maintain that color has no bearing on a persons performance and, to this day, do not even recognize different colors as I am surrounded by a variety of ethnicities daily. I am simply stating that colleges should judge more objectively based on a persons merit and drive to succeed.
All of this aside, I still maintain that you can get a superior education from one of these schools and the opportunities can be endless depending on your motivation. My argument is in the admissions procedure into the undergraduate school. I would like to see these schools return to admitting people legitimately based on their accomplishments and personal drive rather than political motivations.</p>
<p>Yes marite but all three of you think exactly alike and that is the point. The color of you respective skins whatever they are don’t bring an iota of the only kind of diversity that matters educationally which is diversity of views. ThomeYorke brings a different point of view and perspective to the table and he is all but told to pack off to whatever Baghwanistan he came from. </p>
<p>jamimom there was no dig about Catholic colleges. The point was that they exist in America for the same reason that historically Black colleges exist - because for a generation or two they were the only place an immigrant Catholic kid could go to school. When I hear someone babble on about 5 generations of wealthy White kids exploiting Native Americans and Blacks while they lollygag about their New England Prep schools I have to wonder which Hollywood film set they grew up on, how much crack they smoked today, or the early onset of Alzheimers getting me too. It doesn’t resemble the America I grew up in.</p>
<p>“THough I support AA, and feel that racial diversity is important, I do not like the way it is achieved but can offer no better solutions to get the more important end result.”</p>
<p>BTW jamimom the ends still don’t justify the means.</p>
<p>The debate over AA generates lots of heat and many personal anecdotes about reverse discrimination. What is missing is some hard numbers to crunch. </p>
<p>The following data are from The Detroit Free Press (May 28, 2004). The University of Michigans Admissions Office provided admissions data for the years 2003-2004. The accompanying chart provided data for the number of applications by year, race or ethnicity, acceptance and admitted who paid a deposit.</p>
<p>I transferred the chart information into Excel and added additional columns and subtotals to look at the data in different ways. I am not associated with the University and am solely responsible for any errors.</p>
<p>Note: The Excel spreadsheet portion that follows did not format correctly in this post. Sorry. You could try to copy the data into Excel or Word and convert it by using delimiters…</p>
<p>Applicants 2004 Applications 2004 % of Total 2004 Admitted 2004 Not Admitted 2004 Admission Rate 2004 % of Total 2004 Freshman Class 2004 % of Actual Freshman Population
White/Caucasian 11,606 54.59% 7,599 4,007 65.47% 57.26% 4,053 57.26%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3,072 14.45% 1,847 1,225 60.12% 13.92% 759 13.92%
Subtotal/Average 14,678 69.04% 9,446 5,232 64.35% 71.17% 4,812 71.17%</p>
<p>African-American/Black 1,391 6.54% 798 593 57.37% 6.01% 394 6.01%
Hispanic/Latino 826 3.89% 587 239 71.07% 4.42% 288 4.42%
Native American/Alaskan 140 0.66% 94 46 67.14% 0.71% 65 0.71%
Subtotal/Average 2,357 11.09% 1,479 878 62.75% 11.14% 747 11.14%</p>
<p>Other/Unknown 2,333 10.97% 1,434 899 61.47% 8.31% 661 8.31%
International 1,893 8.90% 913 980 48.23% 6.05% 351 6.05%
Subtotal/Average 4,226 19.88% 2,347 1,879 55.54% 14.36% 1,012 14.36%</p>
<p>Total/Average 21,261 100% 13,272 7,989 62.42% 100.00% 6,571 100%</p>
<p>Applicants 2003 Applications 2003 % of Total 2003 Admitted 2003 Not Admitted 2003 Admission Rate 2003 % of Total 2003 Freshman Class 2003 % of Actual Freshman Population
White/Caucasian 14,618 56.40% 8,085 6533 55.31% 58.65% 3,753 61.93%
Asian/Pacific Islander 3,960 15.28% 1,934 2026 48.84% 14.03% 805 13.28%
Subtotal/Average 18,578 71.68% 10,019 8559 53.93% 72.68% 4,558 75.21%</p>
<p>African-American/Black 1,864 7.19% 1,027 837 55.10% 7.45% 454 7.49%
Hispanic/Latino 954 3.68% 670 284 70.23% 4.86% 281 4.64%
Native American/Alaskan 153 0.59% 90 63 58.82% 0.65% 49 0.81%
Subtotal/Average 2,971 11.46% 1,787 1184 60.15% 12.96% 784 12.94%</p>
<p>Other/Unknown 2,205 8.51% 1,145 1060 51.93% 8.31% 425 7.01%
International 2,164 8.35% 834 1330 38.54% 6.05% 293 4.83%
Subtotal/Average 4,369 16.86% 1,979 2390 45.30% 14.36% 718 11.85%</p>
<p>Total/Average 25,918 100% 13,785 12133 53.19% 100.00% 6,060 100%</p>
<p>As the data shows, I combined white and Asian applicants together. Asian and white students are frequently aggregated in SAT reports since their scores are comparable. If you want to separate these two groups, you can certainly do so </p>
<p>In 2004, 21,261 students applied to the UM. Of that number, 11,606 were white and 2,357 were URMs. Admitted white students 7,599
Admitted URMs: 1,479
Not admitted white students: 4,007
Not admitted URMs: 878</p>
<p>A common theme in these threads is that a worthy white student was denied admission to a prestigious school because of AA. In 2004, 1,479 URMs were admitted to the UM. It would be fair to say that some of those URMs had the grades and background to be admitted without resort to any kind of AA program. So the actual number of students that were admitted because of an AA program is some number less than 1,479. We have no way of knowing how many. What we do know is that 7,599 white students were admitted without the benefit of an AA program. </p>
<p>To white students who were denied admission despite great stats, I ask you the following questions:</p>
<p>Is it likely that all 7,599 white students who were admitted in 2004 had better stats than you? </p>
<p>If not, isnt it more likely that a white student with lower stats than yours has your place? </p>
<p>Since AA programs try to promote diversity by bringing URMs into the university despite spotty academic stats, it is easy to claim that your admission denial was a product of that process. Even so, the percentage and the actual number of URMs admitted are much lower than white enrollment. What is left unexamined is that white enrollment is still much higher than URMs and that the group that you should focus on is other white students with lesser stats than yours who were admitted. </p>
<p>Note: some responders focus on the fact that not all URMs actually show up after their admission. The claim is that even more qualified white students are left out in the cold.</p>
<p>For 2004, 1,479 URMs were admitted. Only 747 showed up. That means that 732 spots that could have gone to worthy white students were taken out of the pot.</p>
<p>For the record, out of 7,599 white admissions, only 4,053 showed up. The no-shows: 3,546. So who bears the bigger burden?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I would argue that there has been a decrease in the admission of legacies and an increase in merit-based admission over the last 40 years.</p>
<p>Reading the thread “Some interesting statistics…” I am struck by the small number of elite private and public schools that basically are feeder schools for a small number of elite colleges on both coasts. 17 to Harvard from Andover, for instance. I am not saying that these 17 are undeserving, but that there is a high concentration of admission prospects in a few schools. I have no idea what the ethnic composition of these admits is.</p>
<p>Ddfreedom, it is not true that HPY and other schools do not base their admissions criteria on academic merit. Look at the stats , goodness sakes. It is still very true that if you have very high test scores and grades, your chances of getting into a highly selective school are much, much better. However, because there are so many kids out there with these high scores, that alone will not get you into the school. There is also a holistic review of the applicant that counts pretty heavily too. And that is where other aspects such as charactor, special talents, special “hooks” and URM status come into play. THere are many other student who are not URMs that are accepted with scores below the median of HPY, scores in the lower 25%. It’s just that URMs is ANOTHER category taken into consideration once the academic profile si considered acceptable.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that schools have decided that URMs who are a crucial part of our society, in the arts, in the services, and in less savory situations, and because it is a hot issue today and in recent history and expected to be in the future, should be represented in various professions. To have a bunch of non URMs discussing how to discuss problems, issues and solutions for URMs is not a good situation, and has not worked. In order to have URMs in decision making roles such as doctors, lawyers, etc they need to get the education, and they also need to be represented at schools where many of the decision making policies are made. Right now, there are not enough URMs to get this process underway, unless the status is taken into situation, and it has been decided by the colleges, courts and all the powers to be that this is the right way to do things. Not to say that everyone agrees, but this is the decision made for now. The same decision is made when an all women’s school goes coed and wants to get a jump start on the male population which if it does not do, the move is less likely to succeed because the fewer males there in the first year, the fewer are likely to apply in subsequent year. No one seems to think this is a flawed move, but is pragmatic and smart thinking. So we are doing for URMs until the numbers hit such level where there is not such a gap.</p>
<p>It’s my understanding that the top prep schools have long been just as interested in “affirmativea action” as the top colleges that they feed applicants to. I think I have seen geographic and ethnic diversity figures for the only prep school that I find interesting–Exeter–and they looked to me much like comparable figures for an Ivy League college. </p>
<p>But, by the way, what EXACTLY is the definition of “affirmative action”? (See post #5 in this thread.)</p>
<p>I believe that AA is more than outdated for a problem that existed all too long ago. I am around what you would call different people everyday. I say that because most of those who still support AA maintain that color is still an issue in todays society. In a capitalistic and educated society such as this one, the prejudices that remain are the result of our own attempts to make amends to URM groups. In this day and age we are all privy to the fact that all races are equal, so much that the only reason we treat them differently is because certain laws and protocols that instruct us differently. The concept of AA breeds a prejudice not only pertaining to admittance but to their accomplishments in the real world. Its easy to say that one would be bitter if they realized they lost a spot solely because the bar was lowered for someone else. There are specific programs that reveal lowered crudentials such as SATs as much as 200 points for minority students. That being said I believe that while AA may still be needed for the future, it is in need of much reform.
As per the foot in the door concept, I relate to TomYorkes statement. There are more than enough government programs that have the sole purpose of helping URMs to achieve a foot in the door from a lower class setting. Their success is thus based on persistence. I do not agree with the argument that they may not have persistence or motivation because of their upbringing. I find this both ridiculous and naïve. At this point, they are given the opportunity it is up to them as to whether the should take it. Past this we are crossing the point of providing an opportunity vs. a handout.</p>
<p>All I know is that I pretty much got screwed over by affirmative action in terms of competition within my school. I’m happy with the school I’m going to now, but I hate having the feeling that if I were of a different race, I would have had more choices, more schools to choose from. I"m not saying that the others who got into the schools that rejected me don’t deserve to have acceptances at those schools, nor am I trying to sound presumptuous. Those who did get in were surely worthy of admission, very intelligent people. It jus perplexes me that these schools would reject me when I had higher stats than they did. It also frustrates me that in order to pinpoint a reason for the decisions fo these colleges, I have to point the finger at affirmative action and attribute my rejections to my race and the race of those who were accepted, since I cannot find any other reason. I have deduced and been told on numerous occasions by counselors that it wasn’t my merit or my stats, which were definitely high enough, especially if those who were accepted had lower stats than I, but simply my race. As much as I don’t want to believe it, I’ve tried to consider that maybe I just wasn’t good enough for those schools. But then I look at the stats of the people who did get accepted from my school, and I just feel sickened because I know and they know that my stats, extracurriculars, scores, etc. etc. were higher. Just fyi, I’m Asian, both students who were accepted were Hispanic. Me and one other Asian were rejected to Stanford specifically. It just makes me angry. Don’t think that I haven’t considered that maybe I just wasn’t Stanford-worthy. I have, quite extensively, but I still can’t pinpoint a reason for my rejection other than affirmative action, or perhaps it is fairer to say that affirmative action had a significant weight in my admissions decision.</p>
<p>Getrich, I assure you that there were many more Asians and caucasians who were well qualified for Stanford that were not accepted than the number of URMs who were accepted. And that is the TOTAL URMs accepted. It may well have been a legacy that bumped you out, or a football player or someone willing to haul that danged euphonium for the band and march. You are being awfully narrow thinking that it had to be the fact that the school takes URM status into consideration is the primary reason you were rejected. It does not work that way, I assure you.</p>
<p>jamimom, I see what you are saying, I guess I’m just bitter and I really shouldn’t be since I like the school I plan on going to, but the individuals from my school who were accepted are not football or euphonium players. They are intelligent and motivated individuals who deserved admission without a doubt, but I thought I was at least equivalent to them in terms of merit. I don’t know, I’m just really discouraged and maybe it was simply another football/euphonium player from another school, city, state, who bumped me out. But I appreciate your thoughts, even if you do think I’m narrow minded. :)</p>
<p>I’m not arguing for or against AA here, but I would like to introduce the poster who basically said that there isn’t racism anymore to my good friend, reality. See, here in reality, all the capitalism and education in the world don’t change the fact that our society is full of social inequities. The justice system alone is rife with obvious racial favoritism. From finding employment to obtaining quality housing to simply shopping in an upscale store, minorities often face severe disadvantages. Maybe everyone is privy to the fact that all races are equal, but many, many people have chosen to ignore this, it seems. I’m not saying that AA is the answer to solving these problems, but you can’t just ignore their existence. I seriously doubt that the people who live near me fly Confederate flags and refer to other races with slurs do it just because of our society’s attempts to “make amends.”</p>