<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>PCHope, what are you trying to say? Self-superiority? Can you explain that? People need community support and mentorship from outside but especially from within it, and especially when they are underrepresented in any given situation. I’m not even sure why this is controversial. How does that suggest superiority? Because it’s a universal human need? You are quite right that we all need this sort of support and role modeling but it’s more established in some communities than it is in others and at least one of the positive effects of affirmative action is building a positive community which develops mentors who then serve as role models and heroes to those who follow.</p>
<p>Some of this thread is just flat out depressing. I mean, what truly educated person says the reasons rankings bear a relation to reality is because of OTHER rankings? </p>
<p>GMT-- in response to your question about what you term AA and the rest of us see as a preference for diversity, and when you believe I think it should “end,” I would say that just as they used to act as if it would tax a woman’s brain to be at Harvard, oh the difficulty, and now at most universities regularly admit men with different profiles (note I don’t say “lesser stats”) than the young women, eventually the desire for diversity causes it’s own pressure. </p>
<p>So, just as the techs want young women and the colleges want young men, for the reason of diversity, very few truly educated Americans have a great desire to be on a campus without at least a reasonably representative number or URMs. At this point, a lack of diversity on a college campus is seen as unattractive, just as a college with a 75/25 of male female, or female male is considered unattractive to top applicants.</p>
<p>Well, 3girls3cats, I have problem with “the destructive elements of their culture”. So the URMs have such negative thing in “their culture” while other people don’t? What is the definition of “their culture” anyway, not yours or mine? And once they have got rid of “the destructive elements of their culture”, they will be more similar to the rest of us and everything will be just fine? </p>
<p>I support AA because diversity brings different perspectives, ideas, talents, potentials together to benefit us all. Diversity is the goal, while AA is just the means. I hope that every group does keep its culture, even when AA is deemed unnecessary.</p>
<p>I admit I haven’t read every single post in this thread, but I’d like to comment… URMs, despite their/our often difficult beginnings, are no less intelligent than their “unhooked” counterparts. Put a group of highly gifted (99+%) kids together in a standard K-12 classroom, and some will invariably do poorly…even when not graded on a curve. So they seem to be “less intelligent” or “undeserving” or whatever. But the mistake people make is that they don’t consider what these kids’ gifts are! Is it bad that they aren’t talented in the STEM classes? No. And maybe they struggle in reading and writing, too. Are they then not gifted? No to that one, too. Maybe they are just unprepared in reading/writing and could benefit from extra help (this was mentioned in an earlier post). Or perhaps their true talents lie elsewhere…in something that may only come to light in college or in the workforce. How about amazing salesmanship or leadership? Interpersonal skills? Yada yada… But going to excellent schools where they aren’t allowed to fall between the cracks gives them the opportunity to truly gain the skills and confidence they may not have had before…and (more importantly) it shows them a world that may otherwise have been out of their reach, be it geographically, intellectually, etc. Yes, there are others like them…and they are succeeding! What an amazing message that is. Because even if you have an educational opportunity like I mentioned above, sometimes the barriers get in the way of taking full advantage of it.</p>
<p>“I mean, what truly educated person says the reasons rankings bear a relation to reality is because of OTHER rankings?”</p>
<p>The kind of person who thinks (yes this is a test) that success in life is dependent on finding and defeating those who set conspiracies against you.</p>
<p>Oh, and maybe one day one will become president. Oh, wait, he already is. </p>
<p>But, it’s not solely for the benefit of the URMs. EVERYONE needs everyone on campus. Everyone benefits. Everyone.</p>
<p>ETA: as to the tiers of school, it is so beyond preposterous to actually have a tier of 8 schools, I’m flabbergasted. I’m from an area where we are all educated, where it is rare to find someone with “only” a bachelors degree, and I’ve NEVER heard this said to anyone ever. When a kid is going to Kansas? ten people say, “rock/chalk/jayhawk” from the side of the room. I mean, doctors, attorneys, cfos, ceos. It’s just… I wonder if any of you ever get out into the world.</p>
<p>“Well, 3girls3cats, I have problem with “the destructive elements of their culture”. So the URMs have such negative thing in “their culture” while other people don’t?”</p>
<p>I for one appreciate Philovitists statements, even if I don’t agree with them all the time. Let’s start with why URMs are URMs in the first place? In other words, given equal socioeconomic status, why do some groups out-achieve others? I think that a good part of that reason is culture.</p>
<p>Improving the lot of the URMs is a noble goal. It also has tremendous benefits for society as a whole.</p>
<p>I just believe that the solution to helping URMs must begin much earlier (starting with preschool and throughout high school). It is a dis-service to everyone when trying to fix the inequality at the college level by introducing another inequality.</p>
<p>Well, if it’s a low blow, I’m sorry. But, even on CC, I’ve actually never heard this said. I’ve never heard anyone who considers only the top 8 schools to be tier one. It’s strange to me. Completely foreign. See? You learn something new about people every day. Diversity. ;)</p>
<p>^ Actually, my nephew insists that the top tier contains just one school … HIS school. (Actually I don’t know how anyone could vote against the Crimson Tide as being the top tier school most years. Like I said earlier, when you’re cherry-picking facts …)</p>
<p>Ironically, I’ve seen a number of cases where a kid admits to an interviewer that there are other schools at the top of his list- and guess which they usually name? NU.</p>
<p>But, really, the top school for any kid isn’t based on usnews or selectivity- its particular offerings should be a great match for that kid’s academic strengths and interest. It should be the evironment in which he wants to study and become engaged.</p>
<p>Poetgrl: you are totally right! Everyone benefits! Yes yes yes! I’m sorry I forgot that major point in my diatribe! Thank you for adding it.
And hebegebe: sometimes trying to fix things that way isn’t as easy as it sounds…</p>
<p>I think the point PG and poetgrl (and a few others) have been making, all along, is that “great” schools extend far beyond some mythical 8 or so. That the “damage” of not getting into a tippy-top is perceived, not real. </p>
<p>Face it, this issue is so big that some here have argued aspects of it. Don’t criticize them for focusing on the points they feel are most significant to the discussion.</p>
<p>If post graduation employment is a consideration, there really is a Tier 1 for colleges. </p>
<p>There are a small group of employers that only recruit at a small number of schools. That is not to say that there are not equally talented people outside of these schools, but rather these firms can find the employees they need from this small set of schools and don’t need to look any further. Some consulting and finance companies fit this group. </p>
<p>As far as names go, I don’t know if I have an exact list, but in addition to HYPSM, I would add a few other Ivies and perhaps U. of Chicago. </p>
<p>Having attended both a State school and a HYPSM, there is little difference in teaching but a world of difference in opportunities after graduation.</p>
<p>Time to offer that old CC advice: when something is IMO, please claim it as such.</p>
<p>What freaking assumptions are behind 557? In all industires? for all sorts of employment? Really? Or we’re back to IB and a few other fields? You telling us fewer HYP grads have job hunt issues?</p>
<p>The original OP post concerned mismatch of schools. To address that argument I questioned, “Where is this mismatch occurring”? A couple of ccers posted that it is a problem in the second tier of schools. I was just curious as to what encompasses the second tier of schools. From reading on cc for some time I know many feel the second tier is quite narrow. The complainers of AA are concerned with a very narrow select group of schools. This narrow perceived group of schools has plenty of qualified URM’s to choose from. Just pointing out the flaw in their argument.</p>
<p>For the record I do not believe in this narrow banding of schools.</p>
<p>Right now, if you are going to the Ivies to get a job in finance, which is not only contracting, as a business, but cutting out the awesome training programs they used to have, as well, not to mention what the pay now is, for the same life suck “opportunity,” it would be a waste of time. If you don’t have an MBA, you only get to work there for two years. This is the same with the consulting firms, frankly.</p>
<p>So, I wouldn’t worry all that much. Go to undergrad where you can afford it. Do well and go to grad at a name school for the benefit. Undergrad gets you a two year employment at these places you are talking about.</p>
<p>Of course, they also take all sorts of state school graduates. I happen to be very familiar with this. They want your grad degree to be for the letterhead. Before that? You don’t even feature.</p>