<p>[What</a> are some examples of social injustice/unfairness?? - Yahoo! Answers](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20100222061215AAjIKSI]What”>http://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/question/index?qid=20100222061215AAjIKSI)</p>
<p>thoughts on race in college admissions?</p>
<p>does anyone know of any books regarding this topic?
or at least a specific subject on this to research?</p>
<p>Here we go again…</p>
<p>Try ‘The Bell Curve’.</p>
<p>I went to three colleges folks on CC consider elite schools (one grad and two grad) during the times of AA … and you know I would have a real tough time telling which of my classmates were the “underqaulified” ones since virtually everyone I knew did fine in school. PS among my three schools are two of the schools known to be particualrly tough to get through. In a time with multiples of qualified candidates compared to slots (10% admit rates) this huge pool of candidates allows admin folks a bit of leeway while still picking highly qualified candidates from their applicant pool.</p>
<p>Given that most of college is a politicised scam, it comes as no surprise that they marginalise European-Americans.</p>
<p>You know, Van, if you hate college so much, why do you continue to attend? Unless of course, you enjoy the pain and suffering that you appear to derive from it. </p>
<p>@OP-
All AA does is require that a certain number of minorities have to get in. At MOST decent universities, this doesn’t matter because the number of qualified minorities that apply far outweigh the number that is “required” to attend.</p>
<p>I attend because I want the engineering degree; it is a swindle, yes, but I can recoup the money quite easily. That does not excuse it from being a swindle!</p>
<p>Personally I don’t believe that there is such a thing as the “underqualified minority” in college admissions. What really matters is if you are qualified ENOUGH to succeed. It doesn’t matter if you are a minority or not, if the college admissions admits a student, there is nothing saying that you are not qualified to go to a certain university.</p>
<p>Race blind admissions is the only protection against any form of racial discrimination. Colleges should only consider factors in which the student can control. </p>
<p>All I will say about diversity is that it is an absolute known fact at my school that there are AA admits who have horrible grades and obviously are not academically qualified, and that the school gives more money to less qualified applicants based on race Diversity is just the right thing to do, and if you question it’s tangible benefits, you are intolerant or racist, or any other label people who are trying to transcend labels use. The irony is people all for diversity label, name call and attack opponents, instead of practicing what they preach: tolerance. AA was supposed to make up for years of racist policies, not applied to give AA’s an advantage over others. Also, AA was meant to only help blacks, because the gov oppressed them through race conscious policies (slavery, grandfather clause, jim crow). It was not meant to be applied to other groups, because 1st generation hispanics were not victims of slavery and jim crow. Now AA is being applied to support diversity, which was not the policies intent.</p>
<p>“All AA does is require that a certain number of minorities have to get in.”</p>
<p>Quotas are unconstitutional, have been since 1978 in Bakke.
AA was meant to be a temporary means to "level the playing field.</p>
<p>Refer to the AA chapter in Cox, as mentioned below. </p>
<p>From the actual executive order (remember AA never passed Congress, or was supported by the people, but rather an exec order and judicial interpretation):</p>
<p>“Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.”
and
“The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.”</p>
<p>Both based on Bakke. The revisions have extended AA to other groups. The order has evolved beyond its original intent. </p>
<p>Read anything by Thomas Sowell. Read the Michigan cases and Bakke. Read about the history of AA and how its application has changed over the years. Read the AA chapter in the court and the constitution by archibald cox.</p>
<p>what is AA?</p>
<p>^ I’m guessing “Affirmative Action”</p>
<p>alcoholics anonymous</p>
<p>american airlines</p>
<p>(Note of caution: No intent to disrespect your post, btw tiff90. I’m so bored right now I just felt the need to fit the post in the eyes of NiklasK) </p>
<p>“All I will say about diversity is that it is an absolute known fact at my school that there are Alcohol Anonymous admits who have horrible grades and obviously are not academically qualified”</p>
<p>"Also, Alcohol Anonymous was meant to only help blacks, because the gov oppressed them through race conscious policies (slavery, grandfather clause, jim crow). "</p>
<p>“Now Alcohol Anonymous is being applied to support diversity, which was not the policies intent.”</p>
<p>“**Alcohol Anonymous **was meant to be a temporary means to “level the playing field”.”</p>
<p>(OK, I’m done being immature and procrastinating. I need to finish this paper :p)</p>