Affirmative Action

<p>I thought affirmative action was outlawed.</p>

<p>quotas are. using race as a factor among others isn't. personally, i don't see how you can "use race as a factor for admissions" without quotas, whether outrightly stated or otherwise.</p>

<p>i agree, mediocretes...so do i understand correctly? colleges cannot have quotas on how many people of a certain race can be admitted, but if two people are equally qualified for one spot but they're of different races, the underrepresented race would be admitted?</p>

<p>Generally, yes.</p>

<p>they can be, yes. its completely at the discretion of the college.</p>

<p>oh, and GO SOX!!!!!!</p>

<p>OMG! i realize that there's already another thread on this, but i am so annoyed! why?!?! i'm just waiting to get a letter from a school that says "you're a great candidate, and we'd love to accept you, but we can't because your skin is the wrong color. sorry. try again next year and have a good day." ugh!</p>

<p>LAgal, my question to you is that how can we achieve racial diversity in our institutions of higher learning without using affirmative action?</p>

<p>We can achieve diversity by ensuring that everybody gets a quality education in K-12 and instilling a willingness to work hard and succeed. Not every minority candidate needs affirmative action to get accepted into a institution of higher learning. Many succeed on their own. We need to work on improving the number that can succeed. As a woman I've seen how quickly things change. Women used to be the minority on campus, now they are the majority on most campuses. Because of this men get preferential treatment on admissions. Interesting fact, especially when the number of faculty on campus is still predominately male. </p>

<p>Obtaining admission to college doesn't necessarily lead to a successful future. Last time I checked women still made 70 cents for every man's dollar.</p>

<p>I digress as I get on my soapbox and rant. Diversity is achieved when there are enough people that want to succeed and are willing to do what it takes. You can claim that traditionally minorities come from poor K-12 programs and haven't really been given an equal opportunity. The HS doesn't have AP and calculus. BUt there are always a handful of students that still make it into college. Why?? Because they work hard and their parents work hard to overcome the disadvantage. </p>

<p>That is how we achieve racial diversity!</p>

<p>This thread has been beaten to dead on the old fourm. But if I hear one more arguement about women only make dah dah dah on the dollar to men, I am going to puke. Women make less on the dollar than men, because traditionally women are in occupations that pay less (nursing, secretary, teacher, etc.) If you actually look up FACTS, you will find that when you compare women's salaries in fields that were traditionally dominated by men, that their salaries are very comparable if not EXCEEDING those of men. </p>

<p>Real diversity cannot ever be achieved: some people want it, others don't, and until you kill everyone and start anew, there will always be people who don't like other groups of people.</p>

<p>Joev,
You are wrong. I'm in a traditionally male profession who took a total of 12 weeks off to have my 2 kids, typically work a 60 hr week and do the same job the men do. Yet my salary is 80% of what men make!! But if I say anything I can get fired for discussing salary.</p>

<p>Male teachers make more than female teachers. So do male nurses.</p>

<p>Why does nursing pay less than mechanics? Is working on people less demanding than working on cars?</p>

<p>So puke!!!!</p>

<p>There really isn't an easy solution. But that doesn't mean you stop trying. Didn't know this had been beat to death since I am a new poster.</p>

<p>My facts are accurate. Even when you look at the sexes in traditional "male" or "female" jobs, inequities exist. The differences are not as large. More to the point however is why traditionally male and female professions have such a large differnce to begin with. Are the traditional male professions more valuable to society? Do they require a higher level of training?</p>

<p>But my main point was that men now receive preferential treatment at many colleges because their are fewer male students.</p>

<p>Fosselover: Your salary is 80% of what the men make because you took 20% of the year off for your kids!! Women who want to not have kids and are career oriented CAN make the same amount as men. But usually woman who take sick time when their kids are sick, take maternity leave etc. are of course going to be paid less than men because they are not there as often. You can have children or career. Period. If you want both, you are going to have to face reality that you always be paid less than men. Its a sad part of today's two income household, but its true. Sorry for raining on your parade. (BTW nothing personal ladies <wink>)</wink></p>

<p>Wrong...</p>

<p>If men took more responsibility in a two income household, then they should also contribute to their children's upbringing. Women are paid less because there are people who think that because they bear the brunt of conception (because they are the ones that carry a child to term), that they are worth less than men. Talk about sexist.</p>

<p>The reason women get paid less than men is because the old boy network is alive and well. Men who want kids do not have to chose between career and kids, because it is acceptable for men to be absentee fathers, when it comes to children's health care, laundry, etc... I'm a Republican, and even I know that division between the sexes favors being a man over being a women due to societal misconceptions, as well as norms.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>It's pretty clear that a set quota (ie a specified %) is different than not having a ceiling or floor for URMs. That is unless you automatically think that URMs benefit from the quota system by colleges accepting those that are not qualified for acceptance to meet a target.</p>

<p>Not having a quota means not having to accept a certain number of URMs. Thus, if fewer URMs qualify in a particular year, there is no need to accept any additional URMs to meet the quota. </p>

<p>If there are 2 equally qualified applicants, one URM and one not, I don't have a problem with a college accepting a URM, especially if the school believes that diversity adds to an education.</p>

<p>Funny, but athletes, legacies, donors, special talents, geographic diversity, state residency, nationality, and socioeconomic class also function like minority status does in admissions. But, of course, that is talked about less because it is less obvious than skin color.</p>

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>joev--I've heard the arguements. When I said I took off 12 weeks, I was talking about my entire working career of 27 years!!! In the past 10 years I have probably taken off a total of 2 weeks to take care of sick children. I'm truly lucky in that I have a great support system. Decisions on salaries are based on statistical norms and not individuals. The old boys network is still alive and well. It is getting better, but the system is stacked against women.</p>

<p>blaineko--I don't think athletes, legacies, donors, special talents, geographic diversity, state residency, nationality, and socioeconomic class should have preference in the admissions process. </p>

<p>I can totally support "If there are 2 equally qualified applicants, one URM and one not, I don't have a problem with a college accepting a URM, especially if the school believes that diversity adds to an education." What I have a problem with is situations where the 2 are not equally qualified.</p>

<p>Ideally the college population should reflect society as a whole.</p>

<p>medicoretes: 'i don't see how you can "use race as a factor for admissions" without quotas, whether outrightly stated or otherwise.'</p>

<p>What do you mean? We all know that true diversity comes from skin color.</p>

<p>Am I wrong for believing affimative action is A OK</p>

<p>Young1: "Am I wrong for believing affimative action is A OK"</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Sodfather, how can you say that Young1 is wrong point blank when there is no right or wrong answer here? This is a controversial subject that is based solely on opinion. We can use facts, statistics, and figures to back up our opinions but one’s personal opinion on this issue is neither right nor wrong. The world does not revolve around you or your personal opinion. Your opinion counts as much as Young1’s.</p>

<p>Opinion is one thing and we all have opinions about URM in selective college admissions and affirmative action. I do want to point out that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding using race and ethnicity in admissions has rendered it legal. And any and all of the most selective schools are behind this as well.</p>