<p>@smileygerl,
So what would you propose to remedy that?</p>
<p>I wish I had an easy answer to that question. What I do know is that the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote. This has been stated by many for many years.</p>
<p>then wouldn’t it be more constructive towards that realizing that goal if more URMs graduated from college, and graduated with high achievement?</p>
<p>I think the URM community (and everyone else) would be better served if we acknowledged that kids learn at different paces, and stop insisting on heterogeneous classrooms. When the highest performing kids are in class with the lowest performing kids, the classwork tends to lean toward the lower performing. We’ve gotten away from “an appropriate” education, and lean toward all kids performing “at grade level.” Even if the class works at grade level, the top kids are left twiddling their thumbs, or helping their classmates. We’re spending our money on specialists to help the lower level keep up, but no money is available to give independent attention to the high performers.</p>
<p>And god forbid you have a high performer who struggles, as my middle D does. She scores at the top level in the state testing so “she can’t possibly have a learning disability.” It took until 9th grade to get someone to listen - according to state tests she reads at or above grade level, but that’s when taking a test with loads of time, and she’s still reading at the same level as in 4th grade! Perhaps a little extra attention would have allowed someone else to notice what I was seeing.</p>
<p>As much as I am against placing a kid in a track at an early age, and leaving them there, we need to identify top students earlier, and work with them. Not just the inherently bright kids, but the hard workers too. Put them in their own classes, and keep them away from the influence of those who won’t work.</p>
<p>One could say any kid who tried hard and doesn’t get into the great school(s) at the top of his list is going to be disappointed. What some posters are saying is: but that IS what happens, regardless of who bumped you. Harvard is an easy example. You cannot prove it was a minority, female, international kid, legacy, male classics kid, the bassoonist or whatever. What one sees, ordinarily, is from the outside, from a distance and based on his/her own pov. </p>
<p>I am actually not particularly pro or anti AA, as a law. I am in favor of the steps colleges take in aiming for some balance in gender, identity, background experiences, goals, politics and religion, whatever. Try to make the freshman class representative. Set the first bar that academically qualified kids are the pool you choose from- again, see the Jesuit amici.</p>
<p>I can explain my theory why the Duke study showed what it did- and maybe I will, but not now. And, I’d like to suggest that, beyond the post-prop 209 study quoted here, go find the ongoing prior UC self evaluations- long before prop 209, UC realized they had an evolving pool of minority applicants (I believe the focus was Hispanic or 1st gen) and altered the way they previously added a point.</p>
<p>To understand the minorities, where they are and what they are capable of- honestly I think it requires a whole lot more exerience with various races, classes, situations- observation, listening and processing. Not just googling studies by a prof or two, law cases and interest group outcries. Not just driving through your own community, hearing tales in your own context or sitting down and asking yourself what you think is right. That’s not directed at any one or two posters- it’s that you need far more open eyes to see the impact of “balance” - today, yesterday and tomorrow.</p>
<p>This thread keeps cycling back to “admitting under-qualified.” I see apps and do not find these kids, as a pool, under-qualified. I think some of this thread shows how subtly ingrained bias is- each time someone says, yeah, but they’re pulling in kids who are unprepared.</p>
<p>Our culture is diverse. Let’s let the privates form a blended class that meets a variety of institutional needs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The president, et al, are arguments FOR AA, not against. I don’t know why you would use the beneficiaries of AA to say we don’t need it. That just makes no sense. Colin Powell has been verrrrry clear that AA changed his life and its course.</p>
<p>I do like your suggestions in the post about solutions for the k-12 education.</p>
<p>I can say that I volunteer as a tutor at a community college, where we get in there and really get some undereducated, poorly served kids some remedial tutoring and get many of them up to speed. These are bright kids, most are of latin origin, some are ESL, and many go off to our state flagship, in STEM, and our STEM program in our state is the thing that brings us OOS students. Well respected, internationally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So who will you blame if your 2400/4.0 kid gets turned down and the kid the next town over with the 2250/3.8 gets in? It’s a real dilemma when you have no scapegoat and can’t handle happenstance and not winning the lottery.</p>
<p>BTW it’s amusing to me that a 2400/4.0 kid’s “rightful spot” is always “stolen” by a URM and not a member of the same race with a 2250/3.8.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we get that you are just itching to say Asians are smarter / more disciplined / superior to black people. Just come out and say it already, then.</p>
<p>^I agree. There are plenty of qualified URM’s for the top two tier colleges. Collegeboard.org and ACT.org publish how many URM’s score above a 2100. Top tier colleges do not have to dip. </p>
<p>GMT which colleges are in the 1st tier and 2nd tier. Please name them.</p>
<p>@poetgerl,
</p>
<p>Colin Powell is in his 70’s. He grew up under Jim Crow, back when it would have been impossible for a black man to be elected to the highest office in the world. </p>
<p>Yes discrimination still exists, but America has come a long way. When do you think AA should no longer be needed-- never?</p>
<p>Getting back to the point of the article one of the primary things our family looked at in schooling from pre-school on up is making sure we dont put our kids in a schooling environment where they are not competitive. I have seen the destruction that has done to relatives who put what were very curious, smart kids in selective private schools. They lost their enthusiasm for learning.
I can’t imagine what it would be like to attend Harvard against some of the type 1, study till you drop type of students attending there.
Seems like getting our kids into the most prestigious school we can is more about bragging rights for us as parents, and less about what the kid wants or is in the best interest of the kid.</p>
<p>GMT,</p>
<p>Are you avoiding my question? Please list by name the colleges in tier 1 and tier 2.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you are asking me to name what is a top tier and 2nd tier school. That is not my quote</p>
<p>You have taken the position that colleges are admitting students to top tier colleges who can not handle the work and are not qualified. I would like to know the colleges of concern?</p>
<p>Please read your post #436.</p>
<p>“Top tier” to me connotes a very, very competitive admissions rate (less than 1 in 8 get admitted) and very high average SAT scores (top decile)</p>
<p>Again you skirt the question. You have stated that tier 2 colleges are where the mismatch occurs…yes?</p>
<p>Please list the second tier colleges.</p>
<p>“This is the compelling interest that exists that explains why AA still exists in colleges today. URMs need role models who can make a difference, who can help offset through their influence the destructive elements of their culture. URMs need advocates in the upper strata of society who work passionately for the political change required to fix problems of race in our nation. URMs need heroes.”</p>
<p>Thank you for this Philotvitist. I wish I’d been able to say this as well as you did.</p>
<p>I would classify the Tufts among the private colleges and the state flagships as the next tier. They would probably be top quintile in SAT scores</p>
<p>"URMs need role models who can make a difference, who can help offset through their influence the destructive elements of their culture. "</p>
<p>I, on the other hand, am offended by this statement inherently implying self-superiority. URMs or not, we all need role models and we all need to improve ourselves and our cultures.</p>
<p>Again I request you list the 2nd tier colleges of concern. I doubt people are complaining that minorities are getting into Binghampton, UConn, University of Delaware etc. and are not qualified.</p>