<p>
</p>
<p>I love you, PCHope. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If one of the long term objectives of AA is to raise the socio-economic status of the URMs overall, then the URM community would be better served having more higher-earning STEM graduates, than more unemployed psychology majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all STEM graduates have good or high paid job prospects. Biology is the most popular STEM major, but it has relatively poor job prospects, according to the few career surveys that universities have.</p>
<p>Hopefully everyone made it through Sandy without any major issues. The stock markets are definitely going to be open tomorrow which means that my extended weekend is ending. So after tonight I won’t be able to follow this thread closely or contribute.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, you may want to skip this message. I don’t want you to have an aneurysm burst while you are shouting “You loser! You loser!” to your computer or tablet.</p>
<p>With that, for those who care, here are my parting thoughts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I want to thank (almost all of) you for keeping the discussion civil. AA is a sensitive subject, but intelligent adults should be able to discuss it without getting overly heated. </p></li>
<li><p>Being against AA does not equate to being racist. For Philovitist, sseamom, and anyone else who might have been offended, please do not alter your plans. I think that is the last thing anyone here would intend.</p></li>
<li><p>Although almost nobody on this thread seems to want to acknowledge it, there is a stigma associated with AA, just there is a stigma associated with being a legacy. For this reason, I believe AA hurts the very people it is trying to help. Even if you want to say this feeling represents a very small group, it matters at the margins. Those people do not consider themselves racist, because they would be against anything that gives one group an advantage over another. </p></li>
<li><p>As much as pizzagirl would like to deny it, people can be against AA and yet achieve long-term friendships, a marriage that has lasted over 20 years and counting, as well as have a successful career. </p></li>
<li><p>I think we can all agree that having minorities be under represented in college is bad for society as a whole, and worse for the the specific minorities that are affected. I think there is universal agreement that SES should be considered. </p></li>
<li><p>I think there can be a useful discussion whether the issue should be fixed at the college level (as AA proponents believe), or should be addressed earlier. I believe it should be earlier through extensive intervention starting from pre-school. GMT has attempted several times to start a meaningful discussion, and I would urge AA proponents to engage with him. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Enjoy the rest of the discussion.</p>
<p>hebegebe</p>
<p>I thought GMT was a mom. Now I have to re-read the entire thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOLOLOL.</p>
<p>Hebegebe. Nice to get to know you. Hope the market gods are on your side and wind (I mean, FED) is always at your back. ;)</p>
<p>I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject. I also believe the either/or approach won’t work. The problem needs to be addressed both earlier at the k-12 (or even earlier) level, and at the level of post-secondary education, for the evidentiary reasons I’ve laid out.</p>
<p>The education issue is trenchant and needs to be attacked from all sides.</p>
<p>And, lest we forget, there is a stigma associated with being absolutely ANYTHING in this world, including a 2400 SAT Asian, which I simply hope we can all begin to look beyond.</p>
<p>take care.</p>
<p>"One can argue that consideration of where a person started and what hurdles s/he had to jump to get to where s/he is now is of significant importance in finding actual ability / motivation / merit. I.e. the common analogy of scoring a run after being born on third base versus having to hit a triple first.</p>
<p>However, it does appear that most people, both the pro and the con in this debate, seem to see any sort of beneficial consideration other than the usual academic stats as something that is not really about actual ability / motivation / merit, but about institutional goals and fairness / unfairness that may be seen as counter to the idea of finding the best ability / motivation / merit."</p>
<p>I agree with you on both counts, ucb. At the personal level, those people who have to overcome clearly demonstrate their innate ability and drive that should be highly valued. At the institutional/society level, I am a true believer of the social responsibility universities have to better the society as a whole for everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best math students take tests such as the AMC 12 and AIME in high school and put their scores on applications to schools like MIT and Cal Tech if they are good. </p>
<p>A paper</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/smpy/ParkPsychScience2008.pdf[/url]”>http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/smpy/ParkPsychScience2008.pdf</a>
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957-961. </p>
<p>found that the productivity of scientists was correlated with their SAT scores at age 13, even controlling for terminal degree. Many of them took the SAT in 7th grade for a talent search. So admissions committees, prospective study partners, dates, thesis advisors, and employers should ask about 7th grade SAT scores as well as 12th grade ones. All the constructive feedback I get on CC has helped me refine my ideas.</p>
<p>“If one of the long term objectives of AA is to raise the socio-economic status of the URMs overall, then the URM community would be better served having more higher-earning STEM graduates, than more unemployed psychology majors.”</p>
<p>In addition to what ucb just stated regarding biology majors, I believe that it is personal choice to decide whatever field to study. I have seen most CC parents arguing for their children to follow their hearts/interests and to find the best fit. I do not see any difference for URM communities.</p>
<p>“I love you, PCHope”</p>
<p>Now I feel flushed :)</p>
<p>Hebegebe “Although almost nobody on this thread seems to want to acknowledge it, there is a stigma associated with AA, just there is a stigma associated with being a legacy. For this reason, I believe AA hurts the very people it is trying to help.”</p>
<p>Do you know of any studies detailing this stigma and its long-term effects on professional prospects? When I went to G’town and Duke (grad for law), I cannot think of a single URM who expressed a concern about stigma and at least at those schools when I went there if someone had publicly stigmatized a URM they would have been the outcast not the URM</p>
<p>Not saying it never happens, but not sure it is a substantial enough factor to warrant being against AA programs. After all if a URM student is worried about stigma, they can attend their state public (or an all black school as some top AA students do). Also, colleges with AA programs can lessen any stigma through strong mentoring and advisory programs.</p>
<p>@PCHope,
</p>
<p>Yes, I absolutely that INDIVIDUALS should “follow their hearts/interests and to find the best fit.” Just like I believe colleges should review applicants as INDIVIDUALS.</p>
<p>AA on the other hand does not treat people as individuals, it treats people as part of a GROUP. So, if the aim of AA is to get more representation of a particular GROUP into college, then AA should also be interested in the economic prospects of that constituency as a GROUP.</p>
<p>AA is getting people into STEM, too. You just can’t expect them all to stay in if they hate it.</p>
<p>As the data suggests, a disproportionate amount of blavks are interested in STEM andmany of them go all 4 years.</p>
<p>I feel like “AA” and “holistic admissions that consider race among other factors” are being equated in this thread when they are quite different. One, if i am not mistaken, involves institutional quotas, the other allows race to be one thing among many considered for admission.</p>
<p>No?</p>
<p>Has anyone here even read the study referred by the OP?</p>
<p>Here is the original research article by Prof. Sander,
[A</a> systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools - JSTOR.](<a href=“http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/40040209]A”>A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools on JSTOR)</p>
<p>It’s behind a pay-wall, but many people on here should have access to it. It is a long article, but definitely a worthwhile read.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>Looked at the study but find it hard to believe they relied on patents as one of the indicia of great brain power. First, lots of people (10 or more) often appear on patent applications some of whom do not even have STEM degrees (ie the manager of a scientific unit will typically appear and so at times will a lab tech). Also, today many Fortune 500 companies file defensive patents (seeking to protect their existing products or small improvements therefrom), some of which are granted, that make very little advancement in the field.</p>
<p>“AA on the other hand does not treat people as individuals, it treats people as part of a GROUP. So, if aim of AA is to get more representation of a particular GROUP into college, then AA should also be interested in the economic prospects of its constituency as a GROUP.”</p>
<p>I admit that AA is partially a social engineering effort to use universities as a tool to help the advancement of URMs. I also agree with you that SES should be a factor in admission process to help another overlapping group of people. The only preference I am against is for legacies of rich colleges such as my alma mater.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do they hate it? Are the reasons cultural? Is is frustration because of poor preparation? </p>
<p>I think it is defeatist to be resigned to accept that they hate it. It is important to be pro-active and find out WHY they hate it, so the root cause can be addressed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The full paper is at <a href=“http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think EVERYONE, except the families of legacies, is against the preference for legacies. The colleges perpetuate it because it’s in their economic self-interest to do so: they get fat donations when Junior gets admitted.</p>
<p>You should be complaining to your alma mater about this. Do not assume that because someone is opposed to AA that they support legacies.</p>