<p>
Are you saying “institutional discrimination” the only type of discrimination that should be recognized? It’s only racism if it’s in the books? Like I said before, I think it’s a slippery slope from acknowledging injustices done in the past to becoming a outright shouting contest for which people “suffered more”.</p>
<p>Wraider, answer me this - Do you think Harvard Would enrol a black kid with a 2.9 GPA and a 1500 SAT score? URM’s are qualified.</p>
<p>I am not a Harvard admissions officer, so I do not know. But I would suspect that the black kid with a 2.9 GPA and 1500 SAT score would at least have a much better chance than the ORM kid with a 2.9 GPA and 1500 SAT score. Just my guess. And about your point that they are qualified… yeah of course they are qualified. Lots of people who apply are qualified. But the question is also were there people who were more qualified that were overlooked because of the color of their skin? If it were up to me, I don’t think the adcom should be able to see the applicant’s name, picture, ethnicity, anything like that when they read the application. Only the applicant’s socio-economic background, household income, where they grew up, quality of the school they went to, stuff like that.</p>
<p>Racism is still a vital part of the American psyche. Although the veil has been lifted, the shackles remain. We would like to think that we have entered a non-racist era but the reality is that we haven’t. Although laws have been passed and gains have been made in eliminating profound racism, it hasn’t been totally eliminated. The proof in this this thread.</p>
<p>Over and Out.</p>
<p>-Doc</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The majority of students truly benefiting from AA are those who are low-income/middle class. Wealthy URM students will usually not even need that leg-up, as chances are, they’ve received more than adequate resources and thus are just as competitive as the next applicant. And what “quotas” are you speaking of?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As high as they are? Considering that at most colleges, populations of Black & Hispanic students fall in the single digits, I don’t see how it could be considered such a significant factor in URM enrollment. These select students are obviously offering something to the table, otherwise College A would accept far more URM students to make its stats look better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That argument holds little weight here. It’s easy to say that those countries are doing well, but do they have such a prevalence of distinct minorities as the United States? Obviously not. The United States, as advertised, is a melting pot, and thus, it makes sense that colleges strive to achieve just that. </p>
<p>A lot of AA opponents on here fail to realize that although racism is nowhere near as externally present as it was in this past, what it means to be a Black or Hispanic male vastly differs from what it means to be a White male, more so when you take other factors into consideration. I think colleges are competent enough to delve into this aspect when selecting students, instead of just whimsically taking minority students just for the sake of it…</p>
<p>I am not sure why you are arguing about this. It is a known fact that URMs are assessed differently in the college process. It is legal to do so. There are rules about how they cannot be differently assessed, for instant no quota or point system is permitted. But holistically, race, ethnic background can be taken into account for affirmative action purposes and is not considered discriminatory to those who are not URMs. Because many colleges want diversity among their student body, they will evaluate candidates keeping this in mind. However, they do this giving consideration for URMs, not by discriminating against non URMs. Contradictory? Yes, it is a narrow line, and that is why we have so much controversy over this. This will end naturally, when URMs are no longer under represented.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse: I’m not saying that low-income/middle class URM aren’t assessed differently, but rather, addressing the idea of some who think AA is as rigid as college A accepting an URM with lower stats just because he’s a URM. I think there’s a little more to it than that and to just say that an applicant gets the tip based on his race instead of the perspective that comes with growing up as a certain race is really discrediting. I think that perspective is reflected in an applicant’s application, hence why they get the nod over any ordinary URM students and regular students.</p>
<p>Race should be included in the list of “forbidden topics” along with religion and politics. It brings up such nasty emotions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t have said it any better…
Wow… :)</p>
<p>AA cannot continue indefinitely because of the intermarriage of all the races. Is someone still considered African American if they are bi-racial and technically contain more European anchestry in their heritage than African, yet their skin is still light brown? At what point is someone really Asian or African American for AA purposes if they are of mixed ancestry? What fraction African or Latino heritage/genetics qualifies a person for AA? Times are changing and races are melting together. It seem self-evident to me that college admissions preferences must ultimately be based on disadvantaged socioeconomic status versus race. Otherwise it seems that we would be comparing skin color to see who qualifies. (I do come from an area of Maryland that is very diverse and highly integrated, so this is my experience).</p>
<p>
I doubt Princeton’s taking anyone with a 1500/2400 and a 2.5 GPA, whether they’re or not black, blue, or whathaveyou…</p>
<p>I think the Affirmative Action debate is complex, even with the whole college diversity argument aside.</p>
<p>On one hand, I think its a necessity ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. People will always admit those who are most like them, regardless of whether they are “racists.” For example, you see Italian-American Scholarship funds ran by Italian Americans and Latino Scholarship funds ran by Latinos. It’s human nature to help out those who you identify with. This is why affirmative action is very necessary to ensure everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. Without it, qualified minorities will be shafted.</p>
<p>But on the other hand, Affirmative action, I think, goes to far. Because of quotas, under qualified minorities are accepted and, as a result, qualified majorities (?) are shafted. </p>
<p>Moreover, AA has consequently increased my prejudice against certain minorities. Its a fact that minorities of certain races that are accepted into the school are “less intelligent” (lower SAT scores, lower GPA, etc). As a result, I find myself pre-judging minorities that I encounter, assuming they would not be here if it weren’t for affirmative action. Although this is true for many, it is not true for all. There are many deserving minorities. I don’t consider myself a racist: We are all people. However, I am led to be prejudiced because of affirmative action.</p>
<p>So on one hand, I think affirmative action is necessary to ensure that no one is denied an position solely on their race, but I think it begins to go too far when people are given positions because of their race.</p>
<p>To answer your question Dr. Science: I know a black student who was admitted to Yale with a gpa around 2.9 (perhaps a 3.0) and SAT scores around a 1900. Perhaps an anomaly, but still.</p>
<p>Edit: thought 1500/1600 not 2400 originally</p>
<p>Thanks for the news update about Princeton and the link to the campus newspaper there. </p>
<p>For readers interested in more general discussion of affirmative action policies, not just the policies of Princeton, see </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/441477-fastest-growing-ethnic-category-great-colleges-race-unknown.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/441477-fastest-growing-ethnic-category-great-colleges-race-unknown.html</a> </p>
<p>in the College Admissions Forum.</p>
<p>Its not like a white person can’t get in with a 1900. In fact, a 1900 is considered quite competitive. 6.5% of applicants to Princeton had a 1900 - don’t tell me all of them were black. If you have such a problem with AA why don’t you have a problem with Legacy? Most of the Ivy League alumni are white as you are the most represented race in all the Ivy. Complain about Legacy as much as you complain about AA. Do you know that 25% of alumni applicants get in and many of them are less qualified? Being legacy is better than being a URM.</p>
<p>Let me reiterate: There is no formula to get into HYPS. I cannot emphasize this enough. Nothing guarantees you admission to any school - not SAT, not GPA, not Legacy not URM status. And this is what that asian kid who got rejected from Princeton with a perfect SAT score fails to realize. </p>
<p>You all act like being a URM is like having one of those Willy Wonka golden tickets. Get over it. How many minorities get in? 11% of the student population of Harvard, for example, is black. Would you prefer 2% be black or 0.5% be black? You all are disgusting.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is obviously discrimination against Asians. Exactly how much this matters is debatable, but it clearly still has a noticeable effect.</p>
<p>The evidence is everywhere. Sure, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc are never going to release all of their admissions process information completely to the public, but it is still beyond obvious from the results of the many actual college admissions cycles if you ask around.</p>
<p>Lets cancel Affirmative Action and slip back into segregation.</p>
<p>Asians are more represented than blacks and they are suffering discrimination? Get real morons.</p>
<p>The issue with that, in a college’s eyes, is that it doesn’t promote diversity, which your looking for to put on the pamphlet for you college. All it promotes is a wiki range of socio-economic backgrounds, which is very good, but is not “racially diverse”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One load of BS. Most students are international students at HYPS?
And anyways, there’s no advantage of having a heterogenous community over a homogenous one. I don’t get why diversity is better than monogamy (not sure if I used that right).</p>