Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

[fabrizio]

<p>

That still has NOTHING to do with ethnic diversity. If the point of the program were solely to create ECONOMIC diversity, then yes, Obama’s children would not need help from AA. Since it’s not solely about ECONOMIC diversity, then they do (depending on the school). </p>

<p>Either he doesn’t understand fully how AA works, or he’s just pandering to more moderate voters… he is running for president after all…</p>

<p>Say school X wants more Black students… it should seek just that- MORE BLACK STUDENTS. Whether you’re rich or poor, you’re STILL Black.

</p>

<p>Obama’s children need “help” in order for prospective universities to further “diversify” themselves?</p>

<p>I disagree.</p>

<p>The Obamas are both graduates of Ivy League universities. Should their children apply to their alma maters, they would receive legacy preferences.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the Obamas are successful and wealthy Americans. They can afford to send their children to the best schools in our nation. They can afford private test preparation, private college guidance counseling, and so forth. They are not disadvantaged in the admissions process whatsoever.</p>

<p>Be careful when you use “ethnic diversity.” If you use ethnic instead of racial, then there’s nothing wrong with UC Berkeley it’s mostly Asian, not mostly Chinese, Korean, or Indian. Asia is a continent with hundreds, if not thousands, of ethnic groups.</p>

<p>Obama understands affirmative action. If he’s pandering to moderate voters, then he’s doing a good job at that. My opinion of him became far more favorable after I learned he said that.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“Obama’s children need “help” in order for prospective universities to further “diversify” themselves?”</p>

<p>-This is about helping the SCHOOL (and even society) more so than the individual students. If the school wants to increase its diversity, then I see no reason why it should not be able to ‘prefer’ certain types of students, be they White, Black, Rich, Poor, Northern, Female……</p>

<p>“The Obamas are both graduates of Ivy League universities. Should their children apply to their alma maters, they would receive legacy preferences.”</p>

<p>-And should they not apply to the schools their parents attended? Then what? </p>

<p>“Furthermore, the Obamas are successful and wealthy Americans.”</p>

<p>-This is still an ECONOMIC argument. It has NOTHING to do with racial AA- again, you can be as rich as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re still BLACK. If two applicants (one Asian, one Latino) are equal in stats (as determined by the school), and the school wants to raise its Latino population, I see NO sound reason why it should not be able to prefer the Latino student- none. The same goes for two students from different geographic or economic backgrounds.</p>

<p>“They can afford to send their children to the best schools in our nation. They can afford private test preparation, private college guidance counseling, and so forth.”</p>

<p>-Again… ECONOMIC…. And if they couldn’t afford these things, then what? Then we go back to the circle of you’re claiming to be for equality for all, disliking discrimination and such, but still some how being in favor of ECONOMIC affirmative action. Such a view is dubious at best.</p>

<p>“Be careful when you use “ethnic diversity.” If you use ethnic instead of racial, then there’s nothing wrong with UC Berkeley it’s mostly Asian, not mostly Chinese, Korean, or Indian.”</p>

<p>-I never said anything was wrong with Berkeley’s population. I support letting (private) SCHOOLS decide what kind of student bodies they want- and what constitutes ‘diversity’. If such a percentage of Asian (and its sub-groups) students works for Berkeley, then so be it. </p>

<p>“Asia is a continent with hundreds, if not thousands, of ethnic groups.”</p>

<p>-I thank you for both the geography and anthropology lessons……</p>

<p>“Obama understands affirmative action.”</p>

<p>-Clearly he does not if he can so simply say that his children ‘don’t need it’. </p>

<p>The difference between you and me is that I want to leave admissions up to individual schools, and you believe it is your place to tell schools whom to accept and whom not to.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

-This is about helping the SCHOOL (and even society) more so than the individual students. If the school wants to increase its diversity, then I see no reason why it should not be able to ‘prefer’ certain types of students, be they White, Black, Rich, Poor, Northern, Female……

</p>

<p>I have no qualms about benefiting society and individual students as a whole, but the school? Really? Are you sure? The last time I checked, the purpose of higher education was to the benefit of matriculated students. I don’t know about you, but to me, education seems to be a social good.</p>

<p>

“The Obamas are both graduates of Ivy League universities. Should their children apply to their alma maters, they would receive legacy preferences.”</p>

<p>-And should they not apply to the schools their parents attended? Then what?

</p>

<p>You’re putting words in his mouth. The Obamas should apply to their parents’ alma maters. That was the point.</p>

<p>

-This is still an ECONOMIC argument. It has NOTHING to do with racial AA- again, you can be as rich as you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re still BLACK. If two applicants (one Asian, one Latino) are equal in stats (as determined by the school), and the school wants to raise its Latino population, I see NO sound reason why it should not be able to prefer the Latino student- none. The same goes for two students from different geographic or economic backgrounds.

</p>

<p>Once again. I don’t know what you’re thinking, but education seems to be a social good. Hence, I see MANY things wrong with your statement. Do you think it’s not unjust that a wealthy applicant gets preference over an impoverished, yet fairly academically competent student who has had to face all these obstacles in his life?</p>

<p>But hey, if you’re all for an old-school Aristocracy here, then that’s fine by me. At least admit it. I find things like justice, far more important.</p>

<p>And regarding your unlikely scenario of two identical applicants, I would flip a coin. That’s the fair thing to do.</p>

<p>

“Obama understands affirmative action.”</p>

<p>-Clearly he does not if he can so simply say that his children ‘don’t need it’.

</p>

<p>Uh, CLEARLY he does. His children REALLY don’t need AA. They’re already a part of a highly successful demographic - why do they need a boost when they’ve already had so many.</p>

<p>AA is based on the assumption that URMs underperform relative to the average admit out there. Otherwise, there would be no need for it. It is NOT about providing eye candy for the rest of the campus to be around with, which is what you seem to be promoting. If URMs on average could perform just as well as the other generally “well-represented” ethnicities, then they should be able to get in to colleges without any set preferences. That seems to be the ultimate goal of these admissions practices.</p>

<p>

The difference between you and me is that I want to leave admissions up to individual schools, and you believe it is your place to tell schools whom to accept and whom not to.

</p>

<p>Hey what can I say. I believe in things like justice and fairness. Maybe you don’t find those things important, but that’s OK too.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>Before I respond to your posts… which are you, Asian or White…</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>kk19131,</p>

<p>

This is about helping the SCHOOL (and even society) more so than the individual students. If the school wants to increase its diversity, then I see no reason why it should not be able to ‘prefer’ certain types of students, be they White, Black, Rich, Poor, Northern, Female……

</p>

<p>When you are giving preferential treatment based on race, you are discriminating for using race as the factor.</p>

<p>Our nation used to discriminate against based on race. It was once accepted, but now it is (correctly) universally condemned.</p>

<p>Why should we continue discriminating based on race? Simply because we are now discriminating in favor of groups that used to be discriminated against does not change that we still discriminate.</p>

<p>I agree with Big Brother 1984 that assuming two applicants were equal in every aspect that mattered, a coin should be flipped. Leave it to chance, not discrimination.</p>

<p>Your reasoning is partially what turned away so many voters in the states of California, Washington, and Michigan. Most racial preference supporters remark that “under-represented” minorities are, on average, a disadvantaged group. In addition, these supporters claim that the minorities do not have access to many of the same educational opportunities that their “regular” peers have, for example, test preparation and better schools. You’re arguing that it’s justifiable to preferentially treat the wealthy, who have access to these things, simply because these wealthy families belong to “under-represented” groups. That thought didn’t bode well with the majority of the voters in the three aforementioned states. They thought that it didn’t make sense to preferentially treat the son of a black surgeon who has been schooled all his life in the best private academies our nation has. Hence, they voted racial preferences down.</p>

<p>I am for socioeconomic affirmative action as a compromise because not only does it increase diversity, but it also helps the disadvantaged.</p>

<p>

The difference between you and me is that I want to leave admissions up to individual schools, and you believe it is your place to tell schools whom to accept and whom not to.

</p>

<p>“Your place?” I hope you’re not suggesting that I don’t have a right to voice my views.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

Before I respond to your posts… which are you, Asian or White…

</p>

<p>In sakky’s words mostly verbatim:</p>

<p>

If I were indeed a specific race to back up everything I say, would it change your mind, one way or the other? I suspect probably not. Seems to me that you’ve already made up your mind. So if that’s the case, what would I gain by playing your game? I wouldn’t be able to convince you no matter what.

</p>

<p>To answer your question though, I am part of an “under-represented” ethnicity. No I am not Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Indian. Fill in the blanks.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“I have no qualms about benefiting society and individual students as a whole, but the school? Really? Are you sure? The last time I checked, the purpose of higher education was to the benefit of matriculated students. I don’t know about you, but to me, education seems to be a social good.”</p>

<p>By the “school” I mean all those who make up the “school”. That is, the purpose of the program is not to help random student X get into college, but to provide a more diverse atmosphere for those who are in the college.</p>

<p>I’m not going to start to argue with you about what the ‘purpose’ of higher education is. Firstly, there is no universal ‘purpose’, so you can try to claim such, but it’s not true. </p>

<p>“You’re putting words in his mouth. The Obamas should apply to their parents’ alma maters. That was the point.”</p>

<p>-Read what the post SAYS. It says “Should their children apply”, not “their children should apply”. It was asserted that their children would already have gotten benefits as legacies if they applied to the schools their parents attend- but what about the 99.99% of schools their parents did not attend? </p>

<p>“but education seems to be a social good.”</p>

<p>-I have not said anything to the contrary. </p>

<p>“Do you think it’s not unjust that a wealthy applicant gets preference over an impoverished, yet fairly academically competent student who has had to face all these obstacles in his life?”</p>

<p>-I think you either have it one way or the other. Either you believe a school can choose the student body it wants for the reasons it wants, or not. You can not on the one hand say that a poorer student deserves a spot over academically similar wealthier one- for no other reason than because you think it’s fairer- then turn around and say racial preference is somehow unjust. That lacks sound logic. </p>

<p>“But hey, if you’re all for an old-school Aristocracy here, then that’s fine by me. At least admit it. I find things like justice, far more important.”
-Justice, my friend, is subjective… hence the reason why this thread is still going…. There is no such thing as a universal ‘just’ concept. You may like to believe that what you think is more just, but that is just your opinion. </p>

<p>“And regarding your unlikely scenario of two identical applicants, I would flip a coin. That’s the fair thing to do.”</p>

<p>-No, the fair thing to do is to allow the school to decide how it wants to handle its admissions. If a school admits a student with an SAT score of X, it doesn’t in turn have to reject all students whose scores are below X. At most schools, there is no standard test score or high school GPA requirement for admission. Thus, it comes down to the school picking the student body IT wants. </p>

<p>Tell me, what is the minimum SAT for applying to Harvard?</p>

<p>“Uh, CLEARLY he does. His children REALLY don’t need AA.They’re already a part of a highly successful demographic - why do they need a boost when they’ve already had so many.”</p>

<p>-So, a female applicant applying to an engineering school doesn’t need help from AA? What about a male applying to nursing school? </p>

<p>“AA is based on the assumption that URMs underperform relative to the average admit out there.”</p>

<p>-In some aspects, maybe, but not all the time. In the Michigan case, Michigan was using a system of points wherein a urm applicant would get a certain amount of points for having that status. Thus, if two applicants were academically equal, the urm would win out because of the extra point boost. </p>

<p>“It is NOT about providing eye candy for the rest of the campus to be around with, which is what you seem to be promoting.”</p>

<p>-I am promoting no such thing. I am saying that a school should be able to pick its student body, and if having a diverse student body is important to the school, then it should pick such a student body. I won’t allow you to perverse my points with you incorrect assessments. </p>

<p>“If URMs on average could perform just as well as the other generally “well-represented” ethnicities, then they should be able to get in to colleges without any set preferences.”</p>

<p>-That’s silly and borderline racist. The program is not so much about making up for minority academic shortcomings, as it is about promoting a more intergraded and socially compassionate society.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>

“Btw, Obama has acknowledged that his kids shouldn’t have an admissions advantage based on their race - since they already have every other ‘advantage’.”

</p>

<p>Yes while the Obama children</p>

<p>Are the children of a U.S. senator & presidential candidate
will be considered developmental cases
Are legacies at @ Columbia, Princeton & Harvard (where both parents attended law school)
It is safe to say that they are the children of full freight paying parents (which is always a hook)</p>

<p>As young african american women, it does not mean that they cannot add a unique perspective to a college campus. It is an integral part of elite colleges to be well represented by people from many walks of life.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“I agree with Big Brother 1984 that assuming two applicants were equal in every aspect that mattered, a coin should be flipped. Leave it to chance, not discrimination.”</p>

<p>-This is ABSURD. If college admissions were purely numbers-based then the only information a school would need would be students’ SAT scores- why ask about ECs, or have students write essays or anything else not standard? In fact, schools would just put out minimum SAT score requirements and not even look at any applications that didn’t meet said minimum.</p>

<p>The FACT of the matter is that most schools look at their applicants as a whole, and don’t have some numerical standard that you for some reason believe exists. Again I ask, what is the minimum SAT score for applying to Harvard? </p>

<p>“In addition, these supporters claim that the minorities do not have access to many of the same educational opportunities that their “regular” peers have, for example, test preparation and better schools.” </p>

<p>-I’ve never claimed that, so your point is moot. </p>

<p>“You’re arguing that it’s justifiable to preferentially treat the wealthy, who have access to these things, simply because these wealthy families belong to “under-represented” groups.”</p>

<p>-Yet again, I am arguing that it should be left up to the schools to decide, nothing more and nothing less. Just because you may feel that the wealthy have had many chances doesn’t make it so, and certainly doesn’t mean that a college admissions committee shouldn’t be the judge of that.</p>

<p>“That thought didn’t bode well with the majority of the voters in the three aforementioned states.”</p>

<p>-And I’m glad our great country is comprised of several states. The people of those states have the right not to like a program that uses their tax dollars one way- but the people of other states have that same right to like such a program if they so choose. </p>

<p>“I am for socioeconomic affirmative action as a compromise because not only does it increase diversity, but it also helps the disadvantaged.”</p>

<p>-That is hypocrisy. If preferences are bad then they are BAD, and not bad just for your convenience. Also, I’m not even going to begin to discuss what socioeconomics actually is, I’ll just assume you misspoke when you said you support “(socio) economic” affirmative action. </p>

<p>“‘Your place?’ I hope you’re not suggesting that I don’t have a right to voice my views.”</p>

<p>-I have neither said that, nor shall I ever say that. I respect your views and your right to hold them. On the other hand, the difference between us IS that I favor letting schools decide how to pick their student bodies, and you favor a system of false and unattainable ‘merit’.</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

By the “school” I mean all those who make up the “school”. That is, the purpose of the program is not to help random student X get into college, but to provide a more diverse atmosphere for those who are in the college.

</p>

<p>Really? That’s not what you said here:</p>

<p>

-This is about helping the SCHOOL (and even society) more so than the individual students.

</p>

<p>kk19131, what’s your definition of diversity? Socioeconomic consideration could definitely provide diversity AND it’s fair. I would be completely fine with that.</p>

<p>

I’m not going to start to argue with you about what the ‘purpose’ of higher education is. Firstly, there is no universal ‘purpose’, so you can try to claim such, but it’s not true.

</p>

<p>I think there is little doubt that you go to school to get educated. You would be hard-pressed to say otherwise.</p>

<p>

-Read what the post SAYS. It says “Should their children apply”, not “their children should apply”. It was asserted that their children would already have gotten benefits as legacies if they applied to the schools their parents attend- but what about the 99.99% of schools their parents did not attend?

</p>

<p>Oh believe me, I know what fabrizio said. Maybe you need to read the OTHER half of his quote, which is:</p>

<p>

Should their children apply to their alma maters, they would receive legacy preferences.

</p>

<p>

-I think you either have it one way or the other. Either you believe a school can choose the student body it wants for the reasons it wants, or not. You can not on the one hand say that a poorer student deserves a spot over academically similar wealthier one- for no other reason than because you think it’s fairer- then turn around and say racial preference is somehow unjust. That lacks sound logic.

</p>

<p>Oh really? Care to show me where I said that racial preferences were unjust? I said nothing to that effect. All I did was dispute your seeming idea that wealthy applicants should get a boost over socioeconomically disadvantaged students - regardless of ethnicity. </p>

<p>After all, what you basically said was that a wealthy black person should get a boost over an impoverished asian guy. Notice that I never specified specific ethnicities in my post. </p>

<p>

-So, a female applicant applying to an engineering school doesn’t need help from AA? What about a male applying to nursing school?

</p>

<p>Uh, I think you’re confused here. AA has nothing to do with sexual preferences. It’s all based on race. Even then, a lot of females tend to be academically superior to males. I really don’t see the point of your “male applying to nursing school” remark all that much either except that it’s pretty sexist.</p>

<p>

-In some aspects, maybe, but not all the time. In the Michigan case, Michigan was using a system of points wherein a urm applicant would get a certain amount of points for having that status. Thus, if two applicants were academically equal, the urm would win out because of the extra point boost.

</p>

<p>Nice try. You’ve just described an actual, unfortunate effect of affirmative action. AA exists BECAUSE people tend to think that URMs underperform relative to their peers. Pretend that Asians underperformed relative to their peers and “URMs” overperformed relative to their peers. Who would benefit from racial preferences then?</p>

<p>

-That’s silly and borderline racist. The program is not so much about making up for minority academic shortcomings, as it is about promoting a more intergraded and socially compassionate society.

</p>

<p>I think there’s little doubt that that is in fact, the goal of AA. Think about it. If URMs could get into colleges WITHOUT the aid of set preferences, do you think there would be much of a use for active AA? If all ethnicities could “create” a more integrated and socially compassionate society WITHOUT the aid of racial preferences, do you think there would be a need for the term “under-represented?”</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

-This is ABSURD. If college admissions were purely numbers-based then the only information a school would need would be students’ SAT scores- why ask about ECs, or have students write essays or anything else not standard? In fact, schools would just put out minimum SAT score requirements and not even look at any applications that didn’t meet said minimum.

</p>

<p>Then the students aren’t equal. But that’s not what you asked us. You invoked the exception when an asian and a latino had equal stats.</p>

<p>

The FACT of the matter is that most schools look at their applicants as a whole, and don’t have some numerical standard that you for some reason believe exists. Again I ask, what is the minimum SAT score for applying to Harvard?

</p>

<p>There’s no minimum. But look, you brought up the VERY unlikely scenario of two identical applicants. Not us.</p>

<p>

-Yet again, I am arguing that it should be left up to the schools to decide, nothing more and nothing less. Just because you may feel that the wealthy have had many chances doesn’t make it so, and certainly doesn’t mean that a college admissions committee shouldn’t be the judge of that.

</p>

<p>I think there’s little dispute that the wealthy have PLENTY of chances to stand out. If they can’t do that, then that’s too bad. They don’t deserve a good college. If they don’t want to work hard despite all their resources, then too bad, so sad.</p>

<p>Don’t tell me that you’re trying to elicit sympathy for the rich.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“Uh, I think you’re confused here. AA has nothing to do with sexual preferences. It’s all based on race. Even then, a lot of females tend to be academically superior to males. I really don’t see the point of your “male applying to nursing school” remark all that much either except that it’s pretty sexist.”</p>

<p>-No, I think YOU are the one who is confused… from CNN:</p>

<p>“The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of “under-represented” racial and ethic minority groups have received extra points, as do children of alumni, athletes and men enrolling in nursing programs.”</p>

<p>-My comments were neither “sexist” nor is AA ONLY about race. If you’re going to continue to post here, you should at least know what you’re talking about.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>ok, i’ll bite…why would a male need help to gain admission to nursing school?</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

-My comments were neither “sexist” nor is AA ONLY about race. If you’re going to continue to post here, you should at least know what you’re talking about.

</p>

<p>It is now. The last time I checked, women were doing quite well for themselves with colleges.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“kk19131, what’s your definition of diversity?”</p>

<p>-My definition doesn’t matter. I want such a definition to be left up to the individual schools.</p>

<p>“I think there’s little dispute that the wealthy have PLENTY of chances to stand out.”</p>

<p>-I’m sure there are many who disagree. Just because you believe something to be universally true doesn’t make it so.</p>

<p>“If they don’t want to work hard despite all their resources, then too bad, so sad.”</p>

<p>-What about development admits? What about the fact that wealthier families have the ability to donate more money and help fuel the financial aid for the less wealthy students? Did you even think about this before you went on your tirade about what is and isn’t fare?</p>

[Big_Brother_1984]

<p>

-My definition doesn’t matter. I want such a definition to be left up to the individual schools.

</p>

<p>So why invoke the term “diversity” when your definition “doesn’t matter?”</p>

<p>

-I’m sure there are many who disagree. Just because you believe something to be universally true doesn’t make it so.

</p>

<p>Ok…I’m going to break this down in simple terms. If you have money, you can BUY STUFF.</p>

<p>

-What about development admits? What about the fact that wealthier families have the ability to donate more money and help fuel the financial aid for the less wealthy students? Did you even think about this before you went on your tirade about what is and isn’t fare?

</p>

<p>Nice try. Unlike fabrizio, I actually believe that development admits are too, unjust. Besides, you don’t really need development admits or legacies to be a truly great university. Take Caltech for example. And read Dan Golden’s “The Price of Admissions.”</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“It is now. The last time I checked, women were doing quite well for themselves with colleges.”</p>

<p>That’s absurd. Take a school like Georgia Tech. Women weren’t even allowed to enter the school until like 1970. The school is, to this day, still like 70% male. If the school wanted to increase the numbers of women it has, there is no reason why it shouldn’t give preference to some female applicants. </p>

<p>“So why invoke the term “diversity” when you don’t even have a definition?”</p>

<p>-Because I want the schools to be able to decide. You on the other hand wish to limit how schools can choose to admit people, and I think THAT is unjust. </p>

<p>“Ok…I’m going to break this down in simple terms. If you have money, you can BUY STUFF.”</p>

<p>-That’s nice…… what does that have to do with denying colleges the right to conduct admissions as they see fit? </p>

<p>“Nice try. Unlike fabrizio, I actually believe that development admits are too, unjust. Besides, you don’t really need development admits or legacies to be a truly great university. Take Caltech for example.”</p>

<p>-This is your opinion…. As for Caltech, I don’t even consider it to be a university… but that’s another argument.</p>

[kk19131]

<p>“ok, i’ll bite…why would a male need help to gain admission to nursing school?”</p>

<p>Ask the University of Michigan… But maybe the school felt that having men in the program would help the general atmosphere of the school, or could make the (mostly) female student body more compassionate toward men. I don’t know, and I don’t care to know- what I do care about is allowing schools to pick their student bodies, without undue interference from the government.</p>

[madville]

<p>

ok, i’ll bite…why would a male need help to gain admission to nursing school?

</p>

<p>I don’t believe its so much that they need a boost per se, but the the powers that be want to incentivise more males in an overwhelmingly female oriented profession. The same is for African american males in teaching. If men in these two particular groups are considering careers in these professions, there could be some incentives in the forms of bonuses, student loan forgiveness, or some additonal consideration in admissions and job placement. The same for females pursuing the “hard” sciences and urm’s pursuing careers in the hard sciences and law. AA stemming from the civil rights era has definitely taken on much broader definitions/applications than its original designs.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>“This is your opinion…. As for Caltech, I don’t even consider it to be a university… but that’s another argument.”</p>

<p>?!
Why do you not consider Caltech a “real” university? Is MIT not a real university either?</p>